Minutes-PC 1972/05/01~
~
~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
May 1, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planninm.Coa~luorum was
MEETING called to order by Chairman Farano at 2:10 p. r 4
being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Farano.
- COM~IISSIQ*IERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbsk, Kaywood, Seymour.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
PRESENT - Ass:.stant Development Services Director: FrankaLowryPgon
Depu!:y City Attorney:
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywood led in tk:e Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGZANCE Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 17, 1972r was
THE MINUTES deferred to the meeting of May 15, 1972.
AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
PLAN NO. 110 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California;
to consider circulation and access for an area bounded on
the north by Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the east by Anaheim
Hills Road, on the south by Nohl Ranch Road, and on the
west by Imperial Highway.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTiNUED PUBLIC HEARING. H. L. BUDLONG, 20046 Santa Ana
NO. 71-72-34 Canyon Road, Anaheim, Califoznia 92806 and R. JOSEPH MAAG,
1761 Ladera Vista Drive, Fullerton, California 92631,
TENTATIVE MAP OF Owners; ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, P• ~• Sox 3668,
TRACT NO. 7769 Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; property described as:
A zectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 34 acres, having a frontage of approximately
674 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon road, having a maximum depth of
approximately 2,380 feet, and being located approximately 1,100 feet east of
the centerline of Imperial Highway. Property presently classified R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000. ONE-FAMILY, ZONE.
TNETATIVE TRACT REQUEST: D~VELOPER: S& S CONSTRUCTTON COMPANY, 8857 West
Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills. California 90211.
ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, P• O. Box
3668, Anaheim, California 92803; proposing sub-
division of 34 acres into 187 R-2-5000 zoned lots.
Chairman Farano noted that the petitioners/agent/engineer had submitted a
letter requesting continuance of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-34
and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7769 to the meeting of May 31, 1972, in order
that action of the City Council on the Planning Commission recommended amend-
ments to the R-S-5000 Zone could be taken, since in all likelihood revised
plans would have to be submitted to incorporate said amenTOeeYt lunderrsaid~
and since Area Development Plan No. 110 encompassed the p p y
re~lassification and tract map, the Area Development Plan should also be
continued to be considered in conjunction.
72-219
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972
~2-zao
AREA DRVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 110, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-34 AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 7769 (Continued)
An interested person in the Council Chamber requested that the :,xe:. Devel.op-
ment Plan be presented as to what was to be proposed by staff; whereupon
Chairman Farano stated *_hat ~t was not yet available becacse of the request
for continuance.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Area
Development Plan No. 110, Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-34 and
TenY.ative Map of Tract No. ?769 to the meeting of May 3i, 1972, as requested
by the petitioner. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. BROTHERS INVESTMENT COMPANY,
PERMIT N0. 1296 710 West Pinehurst Avenue, La Habra, California 90631,
Owner; JOHN E. EDMINSTON, Colonial Bible Church, 1916
West Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92804, Agent; request-
ing permission to ESTASLISH A CHURCH on property described as: An irreqularly-
shaped parcel of land con3isting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage
of approximately 470 feet on the west side of Cerro Vista Way, having a maximum
depth of approximately 500 feet, and being located approximately 408 feet south
of the centerline cf Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property presently classified
R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the March 20, 1972 meeting to allow time
for the submission of revised plans.
Chairman Farano noter: that the petitioners had requested a two-week continuance
to complete the revised plans, and then inquired if there was anyone present to
represent the petitioner but received no response, whereupon the Chairman
requasted staff to contact a representative since the Commission wishe3 to have
some answers to questions before they would coneider any continuance. (See
page No. 72-228)
CONDITIONAL USE - READVERTISED PUBLIC HEAFtING. MAURICE GALE HARTMAN, et al,
PERMIT NO. 1306 16692 Landmark, Yorba Linda, California 92686 and ALFRED
L. CANCLINI, c/o Amigo Motel, 416 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
Califoznia 92805, Owners; CHARLES E. GIBBS, 833 Dover Drive,
Suite 3, Newport Beach, California 92660, Agent; requesting permission to EXPAND
AN EXISTING MOTEL WITA WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SUILDING WITHIN 300 FEET
OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE SOUNDARY, ~2) MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK, {3) 6-FOOT
HIGH, SOLID MASONRY WALL ALONG A RESIDENTIAL 20NE BOONDARY~ AND (4) MINIMUM
REQUIRED PARKING on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land havina approximate frontages of 225 feet on the south side nf Ball Road
and 253 feet on the north side of Berry Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 210 feet and being located approximately 140 feet east of the
centerline of Palm Street, and further described as 416 West Ball Road.
Property presently classified C-O, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE.
One person indicated his pre~ence in opposition.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previaus zoning action on the
property, and the proposal to expand an existing motel from a 24 to a 66-unit
facility by a 40-unit addition and remodeling the existing motel by converting
two two-bedroom suites to single units and deleting one of the first-floor
units while also reducing the area of the manager's unit in order to provide
for a passageway of vehicles fr~m the existing motel to the new units; that
with the alterations being done to the existing motel, this would require 26
oarking stalls, while only 22 were propo~ed, and with the new addition there
would be 40 stalls required ard 42 being proposed, or a total shortage of 2
parking stalls; that no additional manager's quarters were being proposed,
therefore, no additional driveway was proposed from Ball Road to the new
addition, requiring occupants to utilize the driveweg to the west after havir.g
checked in at the of£ice, however, a drive approach for fire access only was
indicated on the plans with a removable chain; that three of the waivers,
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1572 ~2'221
CONDITIONAL USE PEatMIT NO. 1306 (Continued)
namely, the building height within 300 feet of a residential zone, the minimum
side setback, and the 6-foot masonry wall, were being requested because the
property to the west was zoned R-1 and developed with single-family residences;
and that the Anaheim General Plan indicated the area to the west as being appro-
priate for C-O uses, and it may, at some future time, develop accordingly.
Of most importance, however, was the fact that the properties to the west had
a resolution of intent to C-O, therefore, the building height and setback
waivars may be appropriate in light of the General Plan designation and the
probability that the properties would be developed for other than single-family
residential uses. However, since these adjacent R-1 parcels might be used for
residential purnoses for some time, it may be appropriate to require a masonry
wall.
Mr. McDaniel then noted that the waiver of the parking was being requested
b~cause the combined facilities indicated a shortage of 2 spaces, and although
owners and operators of motels in the Disneyland area indicated their tenants
came by bus, plane, or train and in large groups, it still was considered
necessary to have at least one automobile parking space per unit in a motel.
Finally, the Fire Department had suggested that the drive approach with a
chain not be provided, that the curb be continuous, and that the planter area
be extended easterly to the existing development and planted with low shrubbery
so that in the event the Fire Department needed to qain access to the property,
they could drive the vehicles over the curb and ~hrough the planting area to
the parking area, however, this would require "no par.king" signs in this
em~~'gency access area.
Mr. Dave Webb, 13901 Yorba Street, Tustin, representing Mr. Charles Gibbs,
agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission arid stated that the
expansion was needed in order to make this project more economically feasible;
that the waivers requested appeared to be technical since the properties to
the west and east had a resolution of intent to C-O, and the setback limita-
tions would not apply; that the waiver of the parking was only a minimum waiver.
and other motels in the Disneyland area had been granted this waiver; that he
had talked with the managers of two motels, and they had indicated they had
2 parking spaces for each three units, which, if applied to this project, would
mean 44 spaces for 66 units, and the managers of these motels also stated they
had filled the motels 60 times since last June but had never filled up the
parxing spaces; that their experience since opening the existing motel indicated
in the several times the motel was filled that pasking spaces were not all taken
up; that upon checking several other motel operations in the Disneyland area,
it appeared their consensus of opinion was that 7 to 8 parking spaces was
adequate for 10 units, therefore, the waiver requested appeared to be very
minimalt and that they would have no objection to construction of the wall as
staff suggested since it might be necessary if the waiver of the parking was
not granted, but they still needed the conditional use permit for expansion of
the existing motel, and, if necessary. :.:~ey could meet Code requirements as to
the building height, wall, and parki:ig, although they would prefer being
granted these waivers.
Mr. Wilbur Blaine, 1208 South Palm Street, appeared before the Commission and
advised the Commission that his property was immediately to the west and was
definitely not C-O but developed with R-1, and it was his intention to maintain
it as R-1; that the two-story proposal would be within 45 feet af his home,
where they had resided for 16 years; that the home was a very desirable one,
and he would request that the waivers requested be denied in order to retain
the residential integrity of his home.
The Commission inquired of Mr. Blaine whether he was aware of the fact that
there was a resolution of intent for C-O on his property, to which he stated
he had never asked for this change in zone on his property.
Staff indicated that the C-O Zone was initiated by the Planning Commission after
the City Council approved a reclassification for conversion of one of the homes
on Ball Road for office use and because these homes all fronted on a major
arterial.
^
u
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1. 1972 ~2-222
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1306 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst noted that Mr. Blaine's property faced onto Berry Avenue.
Mr. Blaine stated that if the zoning was advertised, he did not recall having
received notice of the public hearing.
Mr. Webb, in rebuttal, stated 'ie just wanted clarification of the C-O zoning
since he had been informed all of those properties back to the alley had C-O
zoning pending, in additior. to those two properties on Palm Street~ therefore,
this could not be considered a valid point of opposition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated one thing should be clarified, and than zonetwould
fact that the property to the west was still R-1 and any change
be at the discretion of the property owner, who had indicated he did not
intend to exercise the resolution of intent.
Commissioner Seymour inquired of the petitioner why he did not include waiver
"b" in his statement that they could comply with waivers "a'", "c", and "d".
Mr. Webb stated he would have to consult with the architect to determine if
this were possible to meet and still have the same number of units on the
property, since this had been waived on the existing motel site.
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the existing and proposed motel
should not enjoy the same rights as motels in the Commercial-Recreation Zone
because this was not within walking distance of DisneyZand - it was across
the freeway and also was in a more restrictive zone, and the parking waiver
was granted to the two motels referred to after an extensive survey was made at
t5e Commission's req~:est, which indicated by day and by month the number of
availab~e parking spaces compared with the rooms rented, and guests staying at
this motel wo;ild, in all pr.obability, rent cars to go to various places since
its proximity to Disneyland was not as direct as those being directly in the
Disneyland area.
Comnissioner Gauer tor; issue with Commissioner Herbst's statement and stated
he had seen people walk over the freeway bridge many times, and it was not
any farther to Disneyland than from the more distant motels in the Commercial-
Recreation Area.
The Commission then inquired about the height limitation to the R-1 - didn't
the 150-foot, one-story heiqht limitation apply to this, and what was the
distance to the single-family homes to the south and east?
Mr. McDaniel stated tna~ the 150-foot, one-story height limitation to R-1 did
not apply in this instance since Code required a 2:1 setback, therefore, a
two-story motel of 20 feet would be required to set back from the soutk; or east
a distance of 40 feet; that since the existing motel was across from Berry
Avenue, a 54-foot wide street to the south, and the building was located
beyond the parking area and the pool and recreation area adjacent to the R-1
to the east, there was no waiver required since the distance in this instance
was in accordance with Code; and that the propused expansion would not be any
closer to the Berry Avenue residence than the present one.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the existing motel had ever been filled
up; whereupon Mr. Webb stated he nad not operated the facility since Labor Day
when it was sold, but he would answer since on several holidays since then,
the motel had been filled up.
The Commission then inquired when the resolution of intent was established on
the properties fronting Ball Road and the property on Palm Street, and why
weren't the other properties on Palm 3treet included in the rezoning?
Mr. McDaniel stated that this had been approved in 1967, however, he did not
know why one parcel was left out on Palm Street.
n
u
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Mdy 1, 1972
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1306 (Continued)
Commissioner Seymour stated this was an intrusion into the
lishing C-O intent on the lots on Palm Street, although he
the lots fronting Ball Road - perhaps the Commission felt
Street and Ball Road was too shallow for development since
lished on the properties to encourage land assembly.
72-223
R-1 area by estab-
could see this for
the lot at Palm
the C-O was estab-
Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the Commission was changing the
rules, and he could see no reason why this conditional use permit could not
be approved if the side setback could be resolved - maybe the petitioner would
lose one or two units, but this, then, would bring the parking requirement
into line.
Commissioner Allred noted tlxat if the structure were relocated, the petitioner
still could have two-story units, and a landscape buffer could be provided
aloag the west property line.
Mr. McDaniel, in response to a comment by Commissioner Seymour, stated that
the C-O code required that where commercial uses were proposed within 300 feet
of an R-1 property, the setback must be 2 feet for every foot of building
height - this was intended where high-rise buildings might be considered in a
C-O 2one to prevent any intrusion into the residential areas.
Commissioner Seymour then inquired how long a resolution of intent covered a
piece of property - forever7 - since he did not feel it was good planning.
and rather than have the public respond, maybe the Commission should review
the propezties having a resolution of intent to determine whether or not this
was still applicable since this was about the second or third time in the past
six months that he had personally questioned a resolution of intent that had
been on the property for a number of years, and unless there was some thinking
that the depth of the lot was too shallow, why permit going into a reside^tial
area?
Commissioner Herbst noted that this was established on the R-1 properties in
orde~ to qive people a tool with which to work and to encouraqe land assembly
of these lots, and before the Commission was one party wanting land assembly
to develop, while the adjoining property owner did not want to develop under
the resolution of intent.
Chairman Farano inquired when did a resolution of intent expire theoretically?
Mr. McDaniel stated that the Code estab.lished one year in which to complete
conditions, however, in practice, the City had never terminated these reclassi-
fications since this would allow the property owner more flexibility by leaving
the intended zoning on the property, thereby eliminating another public hearing
unless, of course, the property owners wanted a different zone.
Commissioner Seymour stated he did not intend to double the work load by
recommending termination of these blanket resolutions of intent.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-82 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1306, in part,
for the expansion of the motel only and denial of the waivers on the basis that
with minor revisions, the motel could be built within Code requirements - and
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Sook)
Continued discussion was held by the Commission on the motion and the formula
required for a setback adjacent to the single-family residential zone as it
pertained to the existing zoning on the property and the reason why the resolu-
tion of intent was not established on all properties.
On roll call the foregoiag resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rcwland.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2'224
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. VACATIONLAND LTD., 270 tvorth Canon Drive,
PERMIT NO. 1304 Beverly Hills, California 90210, Lessee; WRATfiER VACATION-
LAND, INC., Attention Russell For~~yth, President, 270 North
Canon Drive, B~verly Hills, California 90210, Agent;
requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING TRAVEL TRAILER PARK AND TO ESTABLISH
A SELF-SERVICE STORE AS AN ACCESSORY USE on property described as: A rectangu-
larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 20 acres, having
frontages of approximately 660 feet on the west side of West Street and on the
east side of Walnut Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,200 feet
and being located approximately 660 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road,
and further described as Vacationland Recreational Park, 1343 South West Street.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREATION.
ZONES.
A showing of hands indicated one person present in opposition.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses and zoning in close proximity. previous zoning action on the
property, and the proposal to expand an existing travel trailer park with the
establishment of a self-seYVice store as an accessory use on the existing
travel trailer park site.
Mr. McDaniel noted that the petitioner proposed establishing a 42,675-square
foot recreation area, two camper storage areas to accommodate the permanent
storage of 150 campers, boats, and trailers, as well as 178 additional spaces
for avernight travel trailers and campers; that the proposed self-service store
would be adjacent to the existing office and clubhouse building on West Street
and would contain approximately 1,000 square feet of floor space, which would
be oriented to the users of the travel trailer park; and that the petitioner
indicated there would be no sign erected that would be visible from West
Street advertising the self-service store which would induce outside business
by the public.
Commissioner Parano left the Council Chamber at 2:52 p.m. and returned at
2:54 p.m. •
Mr. McDa:_iel also noted that tY.e petitioner proposed to develop this expansion
in two phases, the first phase being the recreation area and the camper-boat-
trailer storage area, with phase two proposing the 178 additional spaces which
would also require minor alterations in the camper storage area.
Mr. McDaniel, in evaluating the proposal, stated that the proposed expansion
would appear to be appropriate in this area since it was similar to the exist-
ing operation which had been in operation for approximately one year; that the
self-service store would appear to be an asset to the development since it
would eliminate requiring people to use the public streets in order to obtain
these incidental items during their stayt that the expansion was also provid-
ing increased recreation area, some•ching that appeared to be one of the short-
comings of the existing facility - lack of open space - since almost one acre
of green area was proposed; that the addition of camper, boat, and trailer
storage space would appear to be compatible and would receive its heaviest use
during the winter ~ahen the travel trailer park would receive its least amount
of use; that although the petitioner indicated a chainlink fence enclosure
around the camper storaqe area, since this was proposed during phase one, it
might be appropriate to require a 6-foot masonry wall or some other opaque
type enclosure around the entire boundary of the storage areas - and would
then screen the storage area from view of the residents on Walnut Street; and
that another alternative would be to require the applicant to install land-
scaping and a 6-foot hign masonry wall at the 20-foot setback line along Walnut
Street and al.ong the north and south boundaries of the proposed expansion area
at this point in time, thereb.~ eliminating the future duplication of a 6-foot
masonry wall when the entire development was completed. Furthermore, the
petitioner indicated a 45-foot half-width right-of-way on Walnut Street, while
the Arterial Streets and Highways Map indicated an offset centerline on Walnut
Street which would require an additional 12 feet, thereby affecting the existing
layout by removing a portion of the 178 additional trailer parking spaces,
although this would not be until phase two. However, it might be appropriate
to have the petitioner submit a revised plan at such time as phase two was
ready for development.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-225
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. _1304 (Continued)
Mr. McDaniel, in conclusion, noted that this proposal would be providing
additional recreational area and camper-boat-trailer storage area in phase
one, however, the petitioner did not indicate when phase two would be initiated.
Mr. Russell Forsyth, agent for the petitioner and lessee, appeared before the
Commission and stated they had been in operation with a 282 trailer space park
on the easterly portion of subject property; that they had a chance to ccnduct
several surveys with the people using the property as to how to expand in the
future, and several people had stated their desire for larger recreation areas
for the children; that another need indicated was storage area for people
residing in this general area, as well as Feople visiting the Disneyland area
for the winter to store their vehicles for a period of tir.•e; that they also
found people forgot incidental things, such as toothpaste, daily milk and
bread, etc., and thus the need for this small service-type store which would
accommodate guests in the trailer park; that the recreation area was badly
needed, and they proposed a picnic area and playground for the children, and
this would be placed approximately 450 feet from the westerly - Walnut Street -
frontage line, while still being in the center to provide for the existing
spaces and for future spaces, therefore, this would not affect the residential
uses.
Mrs. Setty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut Street, appeared before the Commission
in opposition and stated that the original conditional use permit was appr.oved
in June, 1969, and this was three weeks after a similar conditional use permit
had been denied on the Shoemaker-Harmatz 10-acre parcel at the scutheast
corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street, and at that time the Wrather Corporation
was backing the homeowners who opposed this foi Walnut Street; that the agent
for the r~titioner was discussing phase one only; that staff indicated this
appeared to be appropriate for the area because the existing trailer park was
acceptable for the past year, however, if this was proposed to be expanded to
Walnut Street, this would be across the street from all single-family homes
in the area; and then presented a petition in opposition signed by 130 property
owners residing in the single-family tract on the west side of walnut Street,
and stated she was trying to represent the entire neighborhood of single-family
homes, since the residents of this tract were experiencing difficulty in getting
out of the tract now because of the existing traffic on Ball Road and the in-
creasing traffic on Walnut Street. a very narrow street.
Commissioner Herbst interrupted Mrs. Ronconi and inquired if she was a~vare of
the fact that there would be no entrance ar exit on Walnut Street from this
property.
Mrs. Ronconi inquired about the emergency exit; whereupon thp Commission stated
chis was a fire crash gate and would not be available to the genera.:. public.
Mrs. Ronconi noted that there would be 450 vehicles entering on West Street,
and she could foresee the petitioner requesting access to Walnut Street by
using the emergency exit; that even after Disneyland was closed, many people
used walnut Street in preference to West Street, and sometimes there was a
solid line of vehicles from Sall Road to Cerritos Avenue, and she wanted to
make sure the Commission was aware that the emergenry exit ~ould change to a
permanent exit; that with the new Disneyland Hotel expansion on Cerritos
Avenue partially completed, residents on Walnut Street were experiencing more
traffic, and there would be considerably more when it was completed, creating
further problems to the residents of the tract attempting to gain access to
walnut Street from the residential streets, and the homeowners had requested
that other me~-ns be provided by the City to exit from this tract since there
was only the ~~ne exit to Ball Road from Feather Drive and another at Goodhue
Avenue; that the plans before '~he Commission proposed a 6-foot wall, and if
subject petition were approved, the homeowners would prefer an S-foot wall
sir_ce a 6-foot wall would not solve the problem of intrusion of the view of
campers to the residents to the west; this 8-foot wall would also help reduce
some of the noises from the facility during the day or evenings, and if the
Commission ever visited the area, they would be surprised at the noises that
could be heard now - music from Disneyland, traffic noises, etc., and Disney-
land was one-quarter mile away, and if nothing was done to reduce the noises
from this trailer park - starting of cars, people talking in the early hours,
~
MINUTES, CITY RLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-226
CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT NO. 1304 (Continued)
etc. - living in those homes on the west side of Walnut Street would become
unbearable; that residents of the area had been accused of opposing develup-
ment for those properties on tne east side of Walnut Street, however, they
had not opposed a previous 12+0-roam motel, but they were opposeR to trailer
parks and carwashes since a travel trailer park was not a desirable use for
the property; that this would establish a precedent for similar requests from
Shoemaker and Harmatz for development of their property - this, then, would
make 40 acres developed to travel trailers with up to 1,000 vehicles on the
premises and would decrease the value of their homes for residential purposes,
therefore, would the City have any other plans for those homes on the west
side of Walnut Street - this was asked several years ago, and staff had
ind:.cated that if this were developed for commercial purposes, one developer
would have to purchase all of the homes; that they felt there were many other
C-R developments that could be placed on the property which would be more
compatible; that they did not oppose a mobilehome park for the property, how-
ever she was aware it would not give the same return for this cype of use, and
anything that would be enclosed would be preferable to an cpen storage area;
that she could stand the noise from traffic of a mobilehome park better because
there would be a more permanent living environment, and the noises were con-
siderably more pronounced during the summer hours since noises seerted to travel
consid'erably, particularly at night; and thst she realized their other alterna-
tive was to move, and this would apply to her neighbors, but then they would be
required to pav considerably more for a home in ~nocher area.
In rebuttal, Joe Kitashima, architect of the proposed development, stated he
could appreciate all of the problems presented by the opposition as to traffic
cince this was a major problem throughout Anaheim, from his own experience,
being a resident of the City of Orange, due to Disneyland, the Canvention
Center, and other activities in the area, and this problem would be apparent
whetaer a travel trailer park were proposed for subject property or otherwise
since there were many travel trailer parks and travel trailer manufacturers
within f~ur miles of subject property. and people visiting the city would be
driving their vehicles there, parking around these recreational areas; that
because of the fact that they were unaware of the requirement fo•r a 57-foot
half-width street, they would have to push the development farther into the
cente~ and probably would have to reduce the recreation area by 12 feet, as
well as eliminate at least 12 spaces for travel trailer storage from the
center portion of the property; that the request of the opposition for an
8-foot masonry wall would be rather massive in appearance and might be danger-
ous, although it could be engineered properly; that in phase one, in lieu of
the masonry wall around the entire property, they would like to provide a wall
f.rom the existing park to the camper storage area, providing said 6-foot wall
would then enclose the first complex and when the second phase was planned,
they would remove the 6-foot wall, still maintaining the wall around the camper
storage area, however, they did not know when this phase would occur.
Commissioner Allred observed that if he would coasider this favorably, he would
require the wall around the entire property during the first phase of develop-
ment since thy property should be improved and the dedication and improvement
of Walnut Street was needed now.
Mr. Kitashima stated that they would not be using Walnut Street £oz ingress
and egress since it was important to have full control of the campers through
the main gate at West Street.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood suggested that if the petitioner's architect felt an
8-foot wall was too high, then perhaps a berm could be developed, however,
any storage areas should be totally screened.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether any landscaping was proposed along Walnut
Street; whereupon Mr. Kitashima stated they had not indicated any landscaping
because they felt the landscaping department should be contacted regarding the
type and size of trees and additional landscaping that would be needed; that
according to the proposed Trailer Park Ordinance, one tree per lot of 6 to 8
feet in height would be required, however, they had not obtained the services
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~Z'ZZ~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1304 (Continued)
of a landscape architect for the proposed use, but prior to the issuance of a
building permit they would consulc a landscape architect regarding the land
scaping plan; that they would have to also contact the Fire Department as to
the type of crash gate that would be acceptable to them, although they prefer-
red having a solid qate.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that there were two items of concern to her:
one was the statement that if additional land was required, the first place
it appeared they would reduce would be the recreation area, however, she felt
it should be taken off the storage area and not thP recreatian area. The other
concern was the removal of the wall once it was erected, which would appear to
b~ wasteful.
Commissioner Allred noted that if it was proposad to take the additioaal 12
feet in the center of the project, it would have to be from both tite recrea-
tional area and the storage areas since the storage areas were to the north
and south of the recreational area.
Conimissioner Herbst was of the opinion that a length of 660 feet of the wall
was equally important, therefore. the wall should ba offset or staggered
rather than a 6 to 8-foot high wall, basically for an aesthetic appearance.
This, then, would provide an area for tree planting, which would be more pleas-
ing to the people across the street. Furthermore, it would even be better to
have a berm since there would be less of a maintenance problem than with a
flat landscaped area - this would give the residents on the west side of Walnut
Street something more attractive to look at. Furthermore, the statement by the
opoosition that a 1,200-room motel had been approved, this use would increase
the traffic on Walnut 3treet since they would have requested access to this
street, whereas this proposal would have traffic flowing to West Street only.
Office Engineer Jay Titus, in respon~~e ' questioning by the Commission, stated
that Walnut Street would have four travel lanes plus two parking lanes wher.
fully developed.
Commissioner Kaywood then inquired about nroviding landscaping on the inside
of the wall since she was quite concerned with the noise factor, and if there
was some dense landscaping along the Walnut Street frontage, this would p~event
the noise from traveling into the residential uses to the west.
Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that the proposal with only the first
phase of development being completed was not an improvement for the property
now.
Chairman Farano concurred, stating it would not improve the appearance of the
property £or those residential uses on the west side of Walnut Street. Further-
nore, when the Shoemaker and Harmatz property was considered, the City Council
felt that a travel t.:~iler park was not appropriate facing Walnut Street, and
even though this facility was not exiting to Walnut Street, if this were
approved, some extraordinary treatment should be required for the Walnut Street
fron4age to lessen the undesirable use to those residents on the west side of
said street, since the petitioner would be obtaining an extraordinary use for
the property, being full all summer long and maybe even through the winter,
therefore, he felt a berm should be required with de:.se landscaping on the front
of the berm and a wall on the top of said berm to keep people from going over the
berm; and that all landscaping, berm, and the wall should be required during
the first phase since the existing development was almost non-existent with
landscaping and appeared to be like a sea of blacktop.
Mr. McDaniel inquired wheth~er the Commission would view favorably a combination
of a 2 or 3-foot berm and a 6-foot wall with landscaping t~ soften the effect
of the wall.
Commissioner Gauer noted that Disneyland had approximately a 25-foot berm with
40-foot landscaping.
Chairman Farano stated that this situation deserved extraordinary t.reatment,
however, not in th~ manner Disneyland had; furthermore, from his experience
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N~ay 1, 1972 ~Z'228
CONDITZONAL USE PERMZT NO. 1304 (Continued)
of campgrounds, someone could go over the berm, therefore, they would have to
have something on top or inside the berm to prevent this.
Commissioner Seymour stated he would like to taZk about several things: one,
the storage area with the proposed chainlink fence; two, the small convenience
store - whi~h he thought was a good idea for the park itself, but he did not
want to attract any outside business; and three, the buffer techniques to be
used to protect the R-1 properties to the west of subject property.
Considerable discussion was then held regarding the three points brought out
by Commissioner Seymour, and upon its conclusion, it was determined that in
order to present a better appe~rance to the single-family homes, the following
should be required: dedication and improvement of Walnut Street; dedication
of access rights to Walnut Street; a 3-foot berm with a 5-foot masonry ~:all
atop the berm; dense landscaping along the Walnut Street frontage; landscaping
should also be provided on the north and south sides o£ the atorage area a
minimum of 8 feet in height to shield the storage area from "W•
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the developer could plant the
trees in the trailer park area now so that they would be given a chance to
grow by the time the area would be used for overnight parking.
No comment was made by the developer.
Commissioner Herbst scated that if campers were proposed to be stored, the
dense landscaping should be required a minimum of 8 feet since most campers
were at least 7 to S feet high.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-83 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1304, subject
to the ICPS&GW recommendations and reqiiiring dedication of acce~~ rights to
Walnut Street, construction of a 3-foot berm an3 a 5-foot decorative masonry
wall with landscaping on the Walnut Street side of the berm, all to be provided
during the first phase of development; that a r~inimum of 5 feet of landscaping
be provided to the north and south of the camper storage area, subject to
approval by staff which would shield from view the storage of the campers;
that the applicant stipulated that signing of the self-service store would be
such that it would not be visible from West Street; that a crash gate be
provided meeting the approval of the Fire Department; and that all the addi-
tional conditions were necessary to provide proper living amenities for the
existing single-family homes on th> west side of Walnut Street. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the fcr~going resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSTONERS: Rowland.
CONDITIONAL USE PERDlIT NO. 1296 (Continued from Page 72-220)
Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner prior to the public hearing had
rEquested a two-week continuance for the purpose of preparing additional
plans. However, property owners in the area had requested that the petition
be considered today; that in discussion during the Commi~sion mornir.g staff
meeting, it was thought by the Commissioners rather than subjecting the
petitioner to the possibility o£ creating additional plans, the Commission
would hear this matter to determine the appropriateness of the land use, aad
under these conditions it woUld be proposed that the Commission hear this
matter now; that in the event the Commission finds the land use to be appro-
priate, then conditions could be placed in the resolution which would require
the property owner to develop architectural renderings for Planning Commissior.
approval, and although this might appear to be going the long way around, it
~tas being done to allow the petitioner an opportenity to determine whether he
still wanted to submit development plans; and that although he realized the
petitioner was not prepared to proceed with revised development plans, the
Commission should determine whether the request, first, was an appropriate land
use.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-229
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1296 (Continued)
Reverend Robert Plummer, 250 South Rose Drive, Placentia, appeared before the
Commission and stated that since the last public hearing on subject petition,
they had done their best to meet with the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association
tn find out what problems the petitioner would incur by making application to
get into Peralta Hills, and with those arguments in mind, the church had
engaged a new architect, and when he received a call from staff to appear at
the public hearing, he was on his way to pick up a topographic map so that the
architect could design the plan, and since he was not prepared to present any
argument, he would request the Commission honor the request for a continuance
on that basis, but if the Commission would like to ask any questions, he
would be glad to answer them.
Chairman Parano stated that the Commission was advising Reverend Plummer and
his conyregation of the attitude of the Planniny i.ommission as to land use,
and the Commission did not want the petitioner to spend thousands of dollars
only to find out that the petition may not be appro<~ed. Therefore. it appeared
that the petitioner's representative was saying that he would prefer that the
petition be continued and he would take his chances on spending the money, not
knowing if the Commission would approve the land use; whereupon Reverend
Plummer replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Farano again stated that he did not know in what manner the property
should be treated architecturally, but the Commission must first consider the
appropriateness of the land use since this was the indication ef the other
Planning Commission; whereupon Reverend Plummer agreed to have the Commission
consider subject petition this date on that basis.
Commissioner Allred inquired whether the petitioner was aware of the fact
that there were 144 signatures in opposition to the proposal; whe.reupon
Reverend Plummer stated he was f+ally aware of this.
Twelve persons indicated their presence in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the
prouerty establishing the R-E Zone and the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone on the
property, noting that the original plans submitted proposed to construct a
church on the property in at least two phases - the first phase having a
42x80-foot chapel whercin provision for 56 paved parking stalls was proposed
with two paved driveways from Cerro Vista Wayt that the remaining structures
would be built in the future and included a 76x40-foot educational building,
z 60x90-foot youth building, a 45x120-foot education building, and a 90x180-
foot sanctuary, said sanctuary ultimately requiring 80 parking spaces, however,
the plans gave no indication whether these stalls could be provided.
Reverend Plummer stated he was availab~e to answer questions rather than talk-
ing to the Commission in generalities.
Commissioner Gauer then noted that some of the questions presented was the
fact that the Commission might consider a church but not a sc}~ol for subject
property and inquired wh~t the church intended regarding the establishment of
a schoolj whereu~.on Reverend Plummer stated it was not their intent to build a
private school.
Commissioner Gauer stated that at the last public hearing on subject petition
the representative had made a statement to that effect; whereupon Reverend
Plummer replied that the plar.s indicated a school building, but this was
intended to be a Sunday school building, not for having a regular day school
operation, and perhaps the opposition was opposed to the semantics, but it was
not the church's intent to have a private, parochial school.
Commissioner Gauer further noted there was also some question as to required
parking and inquired whether there were meetings on Sunday only; whereupon
Reverend Plummer stated that they would meet for two meetings on Sunday, plus
a mid-week service.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-230
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1296 (Continued)
Commissioner Gauer then inquired whether any extra traffic could be anticipated
with church parking on the street; whereupon Reverend Plummer stated that the
architect had advised them that he coul@ redesign the parking area to eliminate
most of the traffic problems on Sunday.
Chairman Farano inquired as to the number of ineetings that would be held on
Sunday; whereupon Reverend Plummer replied there would b~ a morninq and evening
service and Sunday school in the morning when most of the people would be
arriving, and one mid-week service; that the morning service would leave out
about noon and the evening service would begin about 6:00 p.m., while the mid-
week service would start at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the maximum membership that was anticipated;
whereupon Reverend Plummer replied that 500 was the maximum.
Commissioner Seymour noted that at the last public hearing there was some
mention as to a chapel being used as a wedding chapel - would this be in use
in addition to the hours just indicated; whereupon Reverend Plummer advised
the Commission that the chapel would be used only for members of the congreqa-
tion in the event of a wedding, and there would not be any regular business
hours for the chapel as such.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that if the Commission were to approve the use
of these buildings for Sunday school and later the membership stated they
would like to have a private day school, then the church could come in and
state that the buildings were already erected and available, and the member-
ship needed and wanted a private school - since they had invested all of this
money the church should not be denied the right to use the buildings for
private school purposes.
Reverend Plummer replied by stating that if the Commission apprc+ved this for
a church, there would be no opportunity to engage in a day school.
Commissioner Kaywood stated that at this point in time the church was all that
was planned, and if a school was anticipated, then perhaps the church should
look elsewhere for a site; whereupon Reverend Plummer stated that this would
not be a problem.
Commissioner Allred noted that he had made the motion to continue subject
petition for development plans at the last public hearing, and he could not
decide on the appropriateness of land use unless plans were submitted. Maybe
this would be unfair to the Peralta Hills residents, but he still would like
to see plans.
Reverend Plummer stated that all the opposition presented at the last public
hearing had been shared with the architect, and he had indicated this would
be taken care of; that in talking with the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association
it would appear that they were not opposed to a church or traffic, but they
appreciated the manner in which the land in the area was developed so much,
they did not want any other use approved, therefore, on that basis he felt
the Commission should make a decision.
Commissioner Herbst noted that one of the conditions for annexation to the
City of Anaheim by the residents of Peralta Hi11s was that this area remain
residential estates, and to consider any other use would be breaking down the
trust e~tablished with these people, and with the considerable amount of
frontage on Santa Ana Canyon Road, approving subject petition would be estab-
lishing a precedent for other lancl uses being introduced; and that eince this
was a matter of land use as well as commitments made by the City of Anaheim
to these people, he felt the City should honor those commitments.
Reverend Plummer was of the opinion that the land was not too desirable for
home use with the traffic and noises of the freeway, however, the conqregation
felt this area would be growinq and they wanted to "reap the harvest" of the
new residents. Furthermore, from a study made by the building committee, they
felt this would be desirable, particularly with the growth occurring all the
way to Imperial Highway, and there was some breakdown of the zone by the
commercial uses approved at Imperial Highway and Santa A;ia Canyon Road.
^
u
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Mzy 1~ 1972 72-231
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1296 (Continued)
The Commission informed Reverend Plummer that the R-E Zone did not extend
that far to the east.
Mr. A1 Hyatt, 251 Orange Acres Drive. Peralta Hills, appeared befo.re the
Commission in opposition and stated that before the Commission decided on
the request for continuance, the opposition would l~ke to make some statements
and ask some questions, namely, 1) Was this the proper land use for this 3
acres in Peralta Hills? 2) If a church was an appropriate use, shouldn't
more specific plans and specific conditions be considered if subject petition
was to be continued? However, the residents of Peralta Hills argued that a
continuance was not in order, and if the Commission agreed with the Peralta
Hills homeowners, then much time and money would be saved since the Peralta
Hills property owners would hate to see the church spend so much time and
money for redesign on an improper land use, therefore, the Peralta Hills
homeowners felt the Commission should rule on the fundamental question of land
use before the applicant spent money needlessly. Furthermore, he did not feel
that at any time did the Peralta Hills homeowners ever consider a church so
long as no school was considered since it was their feeling that a church would
be a breakdown of the land use established, and if the Commission decided a
church was not appropriate, then the applicant would be saving architectural
fees, and the Peralta Hills homeowners would be saving much time. Finally, a
letter of opposition setting forth the opposition of the Peralta i~ills Home-
ownersAssociation was submitted and was signed by the secretary of their
group.
Mr. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, appeared before the Commission
and stated he was the sec.retary of the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association;
that he had one more comment in opposition, that being that the applicant had
suggested they wanted to make this a sanctuary for their people in Peralta
Hills, but the residents of Peralta Hills had also moved to this area because
of the sanctuary, and why should there be an intrusion of a non-typical use;
that residents of Peralta Hills had worked for the past twelve to thirteen
years to preserve this type of community, and the residents wanted to emphasize
the comments made by Commissioner Herbst regarding faith and commitments of
the City of Anaheim, because at the time of annexation to the City of Anaheim,
he was president of the association, and the reason for the annexation to the
City was because of these commitments, since it appeared the County of Orange
was not going to honor the one-acre concept, and at th~~ time of the request
for annexation to the City, the residents had firmly stated they did not want
a breakdown in this unnsual area, and the staff and City ~elt the same - in
fact, the homeowners group had worked with staff to forv.ulate the R-E Zone,
and in all the discussions of the zone there was nevei' any exception indicated
as to the residential use or proposed zone which had been discussed; that a
church was a form of commercial use, therefore, the people had never considered
the use for the area; and that the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association would
like to ask the City of Anaheim to "keep the faith" and remember their commit-
ments made to the residents of Peralta Hills and to honor them. Furthermore,
a petition signed by 144 residents of the area had been submitted, which
represented 70$ of the residents of the area, and 100+t of the signatures would
have been obtained if the Commission felt this was necessary, but 70$ should
be indicative of the desire of the residents of the area to retain the residen-
tial zone presently existing and not permit any intrusion of non-residential
uses into the area. In addition, Reverend Plummer had stated he could not see
this as a breakdown, since he could not see how anyone would build along Santa
Ana Canyon Road - this would be an argument that could be refuted because of
the many homes already built there or which were being built along the freeway,
and a number of the homes being built were in the $70,000 to 5100,000 range in
the Pera.lta Hills; that he had a friend who had a large acreage which also
froni:ed Santa Ar.a Canyon Road, and he had stated he planned to subdivide the
property for single-family home use, however, he would like to know what chance
a commercial zone would have, and he had informed him that this would be im-
possible because of the existing zone and commitments in the area, and if a
church were allowed, this would be the start of a breakdown of this zone; and
in conclusion, it was the feeling of the resident~ of Peralta Hills that the
City would keep the faith and honor its commitments on something that residents
of the area had worked on for so many years.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-23~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1296 (Continued)
Mr. Richaru Hermann, owner of property on Cerro Vista Way, stated that he had
just surveyed the 22 hom~owners immediately adjacent to subject p=operty, and
all had agreed with the arguments presented by Messrs. Hyatt and Krueger, and
that at the last public hearing the Commission had suggested that the petitioner
contact adjoining property owners, however, no one had been contacted that
would be immediately affected - just the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association
had been contacted.
T:it; HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion that since an agreement had been made
between the City and the residents of Peralta Hills prior to annexation, there
should be no reason for anyone appearing at a public hearing reguesting any-
thing else - this agreement should be binding and something the City would
have to uphold.
Commissioner Allred stated that anyone had the right to request another zone
for their property. even those who might want to build higher than 35-foot
height limitation which was permit}ed in the R-E Zone.
Commissioner Seymour stated he concurred with Commissioner Kaywood's statements,
however, if the City lived up to all of its commitments, there would be no
reason to have a Planning Commission; that it was very clear in his mind -
although he was for motherhood, apple pie, and churches, and Commissioner Gauer
felt the city needed more churches and less bars - in this particular instance
the church would have to find another place for their sanctuary in face of a
previous agreement made by the City of Anaheim and in face of a very large
percentage of the property owners in the area in opposition, he could not
consider this good planning because it would be a violation to permit this.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-81 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1296 on the basis
that upon annexation af the area known as Peralta Hills the City had made a
commitment to the residents that the area would be retained for residential
estates, and the agreement should be considered binding, however, the use
proposed was non-residential encroaching into this area; that City Council
Policy No. 207 had assured the residents of Peralta Hills that the rural
characteristics would be retained by not requiring curbs, gutters, and side-
walks, while the proposed use could be anticipated to have on-street parking
which would be extremely hazardous to the area; that the R-F 2onp had a 35-
foot height limitation which would restrict this facility in thst a church
spire could not be erected which was symbolic of a church; and that in order
to maintain the integrity of the City and insi.re that good isith uf the resi-
dents upon annexation to the City of Anaheim, said agreement should be honored.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbstr Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
Chairman Farano noted that a request had been received to hear Item 14, and
unless there was any opposition to taking this item out of order, this would
be considered immediately after a recess.
RECESS - Chairman Farano declared a ten-minute recess at 4:20 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.,
Ccmmissioner Rowland being absent.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-233
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. KATELLA REALTY, INC., Attention Melvin
NO. 71-72-43 R. Schantz, 1741 Katella Avenue, Anaheim. California
92804 and MRS. GEORGE E. 0°STELTEN, 1745 South Varna Street,
VARIANCE NO. 2358 Anaheim, California 92802, Owners; DEAN S. OLSEN, lrolert
Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California 92804, Agent; p p Y
described as: A rectangular~y-shaped parcel of land
consistinq cf two parcels having frontages of approximately 120 feet on the
north aide of Katella Avenue and 105 feet on the west side of Varna Street,
being located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Tesentl~ralassind
further deacribed as 1749 and 1745 Varna Street. Property p Y
fied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCEL 1) AND R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTTAL,
ZONE (PARCEL 2)•
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE ~PARCEL 2)
REQUESTED VARIANCE: ANAARTERIALASTREETWA(2)RMINIMUM SETBACK FROMAAKLOCAL
STREET~ AND (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES TO ESTABLISH AN OFFICE BUILDING.
Three persons indicated their presence in opposition.
No one anpeared to represent the petitioner.
Chairman Farano advised the opposition that since the petitioner was not
present, this item would have to be considered as originally scheduled.
(See page No. 72-246) .
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CENTURY PROPERTIES, 16200 Ventura Boulevard,
PERMIT NO. 1307 Suite 201, Encino, California 91316, Owner; KAM FOY YEE,
17391 Mira Loma Circle, Huntington Beach, California 92647,
Agent; requesting permission for ON-SALE LIQUOk IN CONJUNC-
TION WITH A PROPOSED RESTAURANT WITH WAIVERS OF (1) NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
AND (2) HEI~HT OF MASONRY WALL ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONE on property described
as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately
90 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 302 feet an.d being located approximately 1,050 feet north of the center-
line of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 310 North Beach Boulevard.
Property presently classified C-l, GENEI2AL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it.is
referred to and made part of the minutes.
Mr. Kam Foy Yee, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated his petition was very simply a request for on-sale liquor in conjunction
with a proposed restaurant, and that he would be available to answer questions.
THE HEAkING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour noted that parking, as he understood it, meant anyone
patronizing the proposed facility would have to pull off Beach Boulevard to
the parking area where angle parking was proposed, and the only way to leave
the premises would be to drive to the rear of the rather long parcel in order
to drive out, and inquired why the petitioner was proposing the parking as
indicated on the plans.
Mr. Yee stated that in their experience with their other five restaurants, the
customers preferred the angle parking over the staff-suggested 90-degree park-
ing, evan thouqh it meant they had to back out onto the street or go to the
rear in order to turn around. Furthermore, they had an agreement permitting
them to exit from their parking area at the rear across the adjoining develop-
ment's parking area to gain access into the street, and then presented the
access aqreement.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 1, 1972 72-234
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1307 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst noted that a bar was proposed to be located at the rear
of the dining area and inquired whether this would be open to the general
public; whereupon Mr. Yee replied that he did not feel people would object
to others drinking a cocktail with their families, and they were not proposing
less tasteful things such as short and low-cut dresses.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the petitioner intended to screen the
bar; whereupon Mr. Yee stated that they planned scrcening except for the
outer area because people were not as opposed to the serving of drinks as
much as they had been in the past.
Chairman Farano noted that the Commission had required screening of any bar I
proposed where it would be viewed by persons in a dining area - this had been
a requirement for the past six years where any bar was considered by the
Cummission without being screened.
Mr. Yee then stipulated to screening the bar as required by the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the type of easement - would the petitioner
have ingress and egress and parking covered in said easement, and would this be
an irrevocable easement; whereupon Mr. Yee replied that he had sent a letter to
the Commission regarding the parking, and the parking would be made available
to them because their peak hour of business would be after the store hours, and
they intended to have hours between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, with most of
the business expected in the evening.
Commissioner Farano noted that when the petitioner stipulated to providing
certain items, it should be up to the inapector to make sure these were
provided in the plans of development.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the location of the proposed facility was
somewhat peculiar, particularly when one was driving northerly on Stanton or
Beach Boulevard - if one missed the turn into the property, one would be out
of luck since it was physically impessible to get back to the street because
of the street pattern.
Mr. Yee replied that if one missed the turn into the proposed restaurant site,
he would still be able to turn in at the Prime Rib Restaurant and traverse
across the front of their property to the proposed rastaurant.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether there would be a break in the existing
Prime Rib Restaurant wall so that people could go southerly from said restau-
rant since she went to view the property and missed the turn-in and found it
very difficult to back up or go into the Prime Rib drive.
Mr. Yee replied there were a number of breaks in the center of Beach Boulevard
to permit people to turn around if thay had misscd the turn in the first place.
Commissioner Seymour inquired about screen landscaping - were the adjoining
property owners required to meet the landscape screen requirement?
Mr. Yee replied that the Prime Rib had some in the rear of their property,
however, if the petitioner were required to provide said landscaping, it
might affect their parking.
Commissioner Seymour then inquired of staff whether or not the screen landscap-
ing had been provided adjacent to the mobilehome park on other developments to
the west of said park.
Mr. Yee noted that the Akron store had no landscaping adjacent to their easterly
wall, however, if was his intent to develop a more attractive place, and if the
Commission required it, they would plant some trees.
Deputy CiCy Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the aqreement referred to by Mr. Yee
was totally unacceptable to the City Attorney's office for parking purposes
~
MINUTES, CITY 1:,ANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-235
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1307 (Continued)
since it would not comply with the Code requirement, nor would the agreement
be acceptable for ingress or egress for purposes of getting in and out of the
r~~taurant property; and that an appropriate agreement could be prepared that
would be acceptable to the City Attorney for ingress and egress, but that there
was no way any agreement could be binding as Yresently ~_sted regarding the
parking.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel read a letter of opposition from the
City of Buena Park, noting particularly that it related L•o the traffic problem
that might increase because of the proposed facility.
Discuss'ion was held by the Commission as to the manne.r in which subject
petition should be approved since the request for on-sale alcohol was appropri-
ate, but the parking and access problems were not acceptable due to the narrow-
ness of the parcel; that the parking would have to be redesigned and an accept-
able parking document would have to be approved by the City Attorney's office;
and upon conclusion of the discussion, the Commission determined that subject
petition should be continued for submission of revised plans that would indicate
the screeni:.f of the bar, landscaping along the east property line, acceptable
parking and ingress/egress agreements.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue
consideration o£ Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1307 to the meeting
of May 31, 1972, in order to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised
plans indicating screening of the bar area, landscaping along the easterly
property line, and the submission of acceptable parking and access agreements
which should be submitted to the City Attorney's office for approval.
Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDZTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, 2828 North
PERMIT N0. 1308 Haskell Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75204, Owner; S. RICHMOND
DOLE, Assistant Secretary, The Southland Corporation,
P. 0. Box 698, La Mesa, California 92041, Agent; requesting
permission to have SELF-SERVICE GASOLINE SALES WITHIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL
ZONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING FOOD STORE WITH WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SSGNS,
AND (3) MINIMUM 9EIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having frontages of approximately 172 feet
on the east side of East Street and 143 feet on the north side of Santa Ana
Street and being located at the northeast corner oi Santa Ana and ~ast Streets,
and further described as 1201 East Santa Ana Street. Property presently classi-
fied C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
Chairman Farano stated that the Commission would waive reading of the Report
to the Commission, however, it would be referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Robert Beadle, 402 Westminster Avenu~. Santa Ana, r~:presenting the agent
for the petitioner, appeared bafore the Commission and stated he did not think
the Code adequately allowed for the proposed typ~ of n^= since this could not
be considered a~ervice station, nor was the section ~r which the waiver
was requested, :.~ecause of the proximity of the reside:. al uses to the proposed
gasoline sales, applicable; that their gasoline pumps .~ere designed to protect
the residents from typical noises of a service station, such as the banging of
fenders, noise of grease rack~, etc.; that the location of the pumps would be
greater than 80 feet from xesidential uses; that in usual self-service gasoline
stations the customer drove up to the gasoline pump area, stopped his motor,
read the directions before pumping gasoline - however, in this operation, the
customer would have to enter the store aad tell the clerk the amount of gasoline
he wanted, and then the pump would be released from inside the store only when
the clerk saw the customer from inside; that there was an emergency stop button
inside the store which would stop the flow of gasoline in the event of an
emergency; that the nozzle would have to be kept in the customer's hand while
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-236
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1308 (Continued)
gas was beinq pumped in a car, thereby eliminating the possibility of gas
overflow if the pump was unattended; that there were over 1,500 of these
facilities in the United States; that they had checked with insurance companies
regarding the safety record of these facilities, and in no case were there any
problems with the proposed type of operation; that this would provide an addi-
tional service to the customer, and they would not have to pay additional money
to get their windows washed; and that in addition to all of the foregoing
statements, the City would not have to worry about a closed service station
because the grocery store was not dependent upon the business but was only an
added convenience.
Mr. Toshi Kuba, 501 South Dawn Street, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and presented a petition signed by 11 persons, all in opposition,
who resided in close proximity to the proposed establishment of the gasoline
pumps, and stated that they were opposed to the request because it would add
to the already undesirable noises from this operation, which origlnally was
operating frum 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. according to the brochure in the
reclassi£ication file, huwever, the store was now open twenty-four hours a
day, and if sales of gasoline were permitted, this would add to the noises
during the normal hours of sleeping; that the traffic on Santa Ana Street had
increased considerably since the 7-11 stcxe opened ep, having increased from
2,000 to S,OQO vehicles per day, and the proposed use was not needed in the
neighborhood, but would only offer a service to people outside of the area;
that the noises from the traffic increase was becoming unbearable, and he was
forced to remain indoors because of it, making him a prisoner in his own home;
that he could not enjoy his rear yard; that the proposed facility seemed to
draw considerable trade from motorcycles, and the noise from their vehicles
when racing their motors was unbearable, and the sales of gasoline would in-
crease this type of business during late hours at night, thus increasing the
noise problem; that he would recommend that in the future when the City approved
a 7-11 store, the hours of operation be established so that a similar problem
would not arise, primarily where these stores were approved in a residential
area; and that adequate trash containers should be provided in the petitioner's
present operation since the adjoining property owners found all kinds of trash
on their lawns.
In rebuttal, Mr. Beadle stated he sympathized with the opposition as to the
noise problem, but this would be between him and the operato•rs of this store;
that he did not feel this proposal would add anythinq to the existing traffic
since they did not find it attracted other than customers of the store, and
this was only a convenience to them; that there was industry across the street
(one block away) and a train i.rack about a half block away (three blockG
actually), therefore, a noise factor could not be considered a legitimate
conplaint as coming from this operation.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst inquired about the hour~ of operation, noting that although
the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of the reclassification of the
property, the hours of operation at that time was stated to be from 7:00 a.m.
to 11:00 p.m., and the existing facility was now operating twenty-four hours a
day in a residential area.
Mr. Beadle inquired whether there was a requirement of the ordinance setting
forth hours of operation.
Commissioner Herbst stated that there was no ordinance regulating the hours,
however, the brochure submitted by the petitioner at the time of the reclassi-
fication petition stipulated the hours of operation ~vere from 7:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m., and he could see where an operatior. open twenty-four hours a day
could create serious noise problems in a residential area.
Mr. Beadle replied that if there were any problems about this store being
open twenty-four hours a day, the neighbors should take this up with the
operator of the store; although they owned the property, it was leased to the
operator.
lJ
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING'COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~Z'Z3~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1308 (Continued)
Commissioner nerbst then stated that if the petitioner owned the property,
this was a complaint the o~vner should handle.
Mr. Beadle theri stated that if this disturbed the neighbors, they would not
have this fac~lity open twenty-four hours a day, but almost 80~ of their
operations were now operating twenty-four hours a day in order to combat the
competition of supermarkets who had been operating twenty-four hours a day,
and that since this was not a stipulation at the time the reclassification was
approved by the City Council, if the neighbors were opposed to the hours of
operation, then they would cease since these stores depended upon their neigh-
bors for their business.
Chair,aan Farano noted that the Commission would have to view any £uture
requests for a 7-11 store with a sharp eye to make sure there would be no
harmful effects to the adjoining property owners.
Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the resolution of intent of
the City Council, as well as the brochure submitted by the petitioner at the
time the reclassification was considered.
Commissioner Kaywood expressed con~ern regarding the new proposal by the 7-11
store and inquired about the blend of gasoline that was being dispensed.
Mr. Beadle replied that it was a major brand of gasoline
Commissioner Kaywood then inquired whether it was the intent of the owners of
7-11 operations to establish gasoline pumps in all of their facilities; where-
upon Mr. Beadle stated there were about 25 to 30 in operation in Southern
California, and this was not a new type of operation but had been typical of
the old mom and pop grocery stores where gasoline was dispensed.
Commissioner Gauer noted that years ago this was a normal manner of handling
sales of gasoline, but he would not like to see this type of operation again.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-84 and moved for its passage
and aduption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1308 on the basis
that the Planning Commission had originally recommended ~'sapproval o£ the
zone change as being an undesirable use in a residential area; that there had
been no land use ~hange in the area since the last time the Planning Commission
and City Council denied a request for gasoline pump sales to grant favorable
consideration at this time; that approval of subject peEition would be granting
a privilege not enjeyed by other similar businesses throughout the city; that
the City of ?lnaheim was experiencing a 20 to 25$ closing of existing service
station sites, a,i@ *_he proposed use would add further to reducing business
which should, by right, be e~t?blished in a service station; and that noise,
odors, and additional traffic from tiic oroposed use that would be generated
would be detrimental to the peace, health, sa~?ty, and general welfare of the
residents in this general area. (See Resol.ution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIOrERS: Rowland.
VARIANCE NO. ?352 - PUBLIC HEARING. GARY V. AND SHARON E. GAISER, 1903 Ridge-
wood, Orange, California 92665, Owners; reques~ing WAIVER
OF (1) PERMITTED USES AND (21 PERMITTED SIGNS TO ESTABLISH
p RETAIL BUSINESS IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE on property described as: A rec-
tangularly-shaped parcel of land having frontages of approximately 69 feet on
the east side of Tiara Street and 120 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue,
bPing located approximately 686 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street,
and further desc=ibed as 1792 South Tiara Street. Property presently classi-
fied R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. May 1, 1972 ~2-238
VARIANCE NO. 2352 (Continued)
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mrs. Sharon Gaiser, one of the petitioners, appeared before che Commission
and reviewed the location of subject property, noting the various commercial
uses established in close proximity along Katella Avenue and indicated they
were requesting a temporary variance for the use of the home as a residential
use in conjunction with a yarn shop which her mother would be operating until
the balance of Katella Avenue was widened, at which time they would aqree to
the dedication and street improvement, and relocation of the home while con-
verting it to a commercial facility.
The Commission inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus when the City planned
to widen Katella Aver.ue, as the petitioner had mentioned; whereupon Mr. Titus
stated he did not know of any immediate plan or project to widen the street
in this area.
Mrs. Gai.ser stated it was even published in a newspaper that the street would
be widened.
Mr. Titus stated that a condition of approval was the dedication and improve-
ment of Katella Avenue.
Mrs. Gaiser noted that the existing homes immediately to the east would be
projecting into the public right-of-way, while her property would not since
the house was located so that it was 48 feet from rear to front.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner lived in the home;
whereupon Mrs. Gaiser stated that the home was being rented to an older
aouple, and since she had small children, it would be rather dangerous for
her family to live in the home, but it was her mother's intent to open a
yarn shop; and that the article in the newspaper stated the County and the
Ci~ty would have to give equal money for the widening of the street. Further-
more, they had had the property for approximately a month.
The Commission noted that the petitioner would have to dedicate now and post
a bond tn insure that the improvements would be made since the City did not
construct these improvements, and inquired whether this would be worth it to
the petitioner if these improvements were paid since upon deftication there
would be only a lot 49 feet in width left, or a 6000-square foot lot left
for commercial development; that the petitioner was proposing a revo]ving
sign, and when dedication was made, this sign would be in the public right-
of-way, therefore. the petitioner would be spending money only to have to
remove the sign, or. even move the building, which did not seem logical for
the petitioner to stand by idly after investing this amount of money and the
City £orcing the property owner to give up these improvements - this wauld
create problems and a further variance might be requested so that they could
be relieved of these problems if subject petition ~vere approved; and that it
would appear the commercial use of the property could not be enjoyed unless
additional waivers were approve@.
Mrs. Gaiser noted that a letter had been sent to the property owners regarding
the street widening, and she had inquired of the City Engineer's office, who
had verified this. Furthermore, the property across the street was already
zoned commercial, and it was part of the original tract. This structure across
the street was an office-professional use with a restaurant and other commer-
cial uses immediately to the west, and then in respanse to Commission question-
ing, stated her lot would have the aame dimensions after dedication as that to
the west, and there were other homes down the street which had changed to very
attractive businesses.
Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether the petitioner intended to come
back and ask for special concessions because of the investment made, to which
Mrs. Gaiser stated they did not intend to request further waivers.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM.fISSION, May 1, 1972 ~Z'239
VARIANCE N0. t352 (Continued)
fHE HEARING WAS CLOSSD.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that she had inspected the property and had driven
up and down the street - a street which had very little traffic - therefore,
she could not see any reason for eroding the neighborhood any more.
Commissioner Gauer noted that subject property woi:ld be no different than the
property to the west; whereupon Commissioner Allred noted that the property
to the west was developed with a commercial building, whereas the petitioner
did not intend to zemove the nome and develop the property with a com:nercial
structure.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the City paicl fc+r curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks where they cvere already installed; whereupon Mr. Titus noted that
if curbs, gutters, and sidewalks were installed under City standards previously
establiahed and the City standards for a street wcre char_ged, the City would
construct these improvements when additional dedication was made, however,
subject property did not have sidewalks, an3 if the street were widened For
additional traffic needs and the petitioner was requesting a more intense use
for the property, it was the City's poli::y to require the petitioner, as a
condition of approval, to install all improvements under the new engineer.ing
regulations.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-85 and moved for its passage
and ad~ption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2352 for a period of one year
as to the use for a yarn shop, denying waiver of the sign requirement, requir-
ing the petitioner to post a bond to insure installation of improvements for
the street at such time as the street was widened; and that at the end of the
year the Planning Commission would rF~iew the use granted to determine hcw the
use had affected the a.rea since the peti.tioner had stipulated to only a
temporary variance, said use being granted temporarily since any other use
might require additi~nal parking, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution
BOOk~
On .1 cal.l the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CUMMISSIONEFS: Allre3, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour.
N6ES: COMM~SSIONERS: Kaywood.
ABSENT: COM::'SSIONERS: Rowland.
VARIANCE N0. 2353 - PUBLIC HEARING. HARRY AND LILLIAN SHAM, 1320 Ridge View
~~ Terrace, Fullerton, Califcrnia 92631, Owners; requesting
WAIVER OF SIPE SETBACK TO ESTABLISH AN OFFICE BUILDING on
property described as: An L-shaped parcel of land havinq frontages of apnroxi-
mately 150 feet on the south side of Broadway and 170 feet on the east side of
Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 315 feet and being
located approximately 200 feet south and east of the intersection of Broadway
and Euc.lid Street, and further descr.ibed as 1680 West Broadway. Property
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COASMERCIAL, 2!_7E.
No o~~e appeared in opposition.
'ellthough tne Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Harry Sham, the petitioner, appeared befere the Commission and stated he
had owned this property for some time; that the improvements were already in
and now they pianned to construct an attractive office building, however, the
waiver was necessary because the building would project at one location only
one foot from the R-3 garcel to the east, however, this wouZd be adjacEnt to
the driveway serving the apartment development and would not bE adjacent to
a living unit; and then in respoxise to a question by the Commission, stated
that he did not own the service station at the corner of Broadway and Euclid
Street.
THE HEARZNG WAS CLOSEA.
~
s
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C6MMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-240
VARSANCE N0. 2353 (Continued)
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-86 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Vaiance No. 2353 on the basis that the
projection to the property line would not affect the residential environment
of the R-3 property to the east, and subiect to conditions. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
VARIANCE NO. 2354 - PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES FRIBDMAN, 2124 Harriet Lane,
Anaheim, California 92804, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK TO PERMIT A ROOM ADDITION TO A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the south side
of Harriet Lane, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 103 feet, and beir~g
located approximately 840 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street,
and further described as 2124 Harriet Lane. Property presently classified
R-1~ ONE-FAM'!LY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mrs. Charles Friedman, wife of the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and noted that they were requesting the rear yard setback waiver to construct
a recreation room since they had four boys and wanted to keep the children
under their supervisio:.; that her husband was active in Little League, and
she was also active in the Boy Scouts, and the recreation room would provide
an area for meetings. P•urthermore, she had discussed this with the property
owners surrounding her property, and no one had indicated any objection.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the elevation proposed for the
addition would be incorporated as part of the house as to roof structure;
whereupon Mrs. Friedman replied that it would be adjoining the rear porti~.i
of the two-story structure and would have a high window at the rear.
Commissioner Herbst expressed concern about the noise if this was to be a
recreation room where many active children would be located, since he realized
that the proposed addition would be near the property line.
Mrs. Friedman replied that the homes in this tract were located closer to
the front of the street, and there would be about 25 to 30 feet distance
between the proposed addition and the house to the rear.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the neighbor to the rear had been
contacted as to whether they were in favor or opposition; whereupon Mrs.
Friedman stated they had contacted the neighbor and there was no opposition
expressed.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-87 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2354, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMM'~..°,IONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymonr.
NOES : CONt4.T.S'.iIONERS : None .
ABSENT: COMM~SSIONERS: RoWland.
n
U
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-241
VARIANCE N0. 2355 - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER REVOCABLE TRUST, RCA Building,
Suite 700, 6363 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, California
90028, Owner; JOHN L. OSBORNE, 1881 West Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, Californis 92801, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM AGGREGATE
AREA OF SIGNS, ~Z) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (4) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN~ AND (5)
MAXIMUM AREA OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ESTABLZSH THE EXISTING SIGNS AS CONFORM-
ING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 10 acres, having a frontage of approximately 800
feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 570 feet and being located between Crescent Way and tduller Street, and
further described as 1881 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified
C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
Mr. John Osborne, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated he was available to answer questions.
Chairman Farano inquired as to how the signs were erected on the property and
was the agent present or associated with Fed Mart when the zoning had been
granted.
Mr. Osborne replied that he was not the manager at this location at that time,
and that the signs were erected at the time the building was erected.
Chairman Farano noted that these were nonconforming signs that were not
approved at the public hearing. therefore, since they were not part of the
original petition, they should be removed.
Mr. Osborne stated his reason for applying for these waivers was because they
had requested permission to establish price signs, however, staff had informed
them that all of the signs on the service statior. premises were nonconforming
signs, therefore, they would suggest that the variance inalude all of the non-
conforming signs, and the main reason for appearing before the Commission was
to obtain approval of the price signs; that at one time they had an llxl4-inch
sign at the gas pumps which suggested that the customer have his oil checked,
but these signs would not be seen from the street; that another sign they would
like would be one far tire display, which they formerly had but had been in-
formed they would have to remove it.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner was willing to remove all
of the other nonconforming signs on the service station site in return fo~
approval of the price signs; whereupon Mr. Osborne stated that they needed the
price signs; that the building had been painted, the signs were also painted,
and the area cleaned up, as well as the canopy, and they tried to reduce the
sign but they needed the sign to identify the Fed Mart brand af gasoline.
Commissioner Kaywood suggested that the sign with the r.ame Fed Mart was suffi-
cient, therefore, the petitioner needed only a gas price sign.
Mr. Osborne stated that the service station was several hundred feet from the
main sign, therefore, additional identification was necessary.
Commissioner Gauer stated that all of. the signs appeared not to be in confor.-
ance with the Sign Ordinance; whereupon Assistant 2oning Supervisor pon McDaniel
stated that many of the signs had not been established by building permit,
variance, or otherwise.
Cc,mmissioner P..llred offered a motion to approve establish.ing the price signs
only and require removal of all of the existing nonconforming signs, with
signing to be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance.
Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding the motion ard whether
or not the petition should be continued for the petitioner to submit revised
plans for thF -anner ~n which he proposed ~iqning for the service station which
was part of ti~e Fed Mart complex, and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Allred
withdrew his motion for approval.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May l, 1972 ~2-242
VARIANCE NO. 2355 (Continued)
Commissioner Allred of£ered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue
consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2355 to the meeting of May 31,
in order to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans indicatinq
how signing would be accomplished, provided, however, that all nonconforming
siyns be removed immediately from the service station site. Commissioner
Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NO. 2356 -• PUBLIC HEARING. CALPROP CORPORATION. Attention James S.
Meyer, Sr. Vice President, 1900 Avenue of the Stars,
I.os Angeles, California 90067 and BERNA~2D0, JACK, AND
EDNA YORBA, 544G Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, California 92806. Owners;
re2uesting WAIVER OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A
ZONE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 78-UNIT PLANNED RESIDFNTIAL DEVELOPMENT on
property described as: An irregularly-shaped paircel o£ land consisting of
approximately 11 acres, having a frontage of approximately 260 feet on the
west side of Imperial Highway, having a maximuzn depth of approximately 1,185
feet, and being located approximately 700 feet north of the centerline of
Nohl Ranch Road at the southwest corner of Avenida Bernardo South and Imperial
Highway. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 'LONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Alt.hough the Report to the Commission was r~ot read zt the public hearing, it /
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. James Meyer, representing the petitioners, appeared beiore the Commission
and stated that the waiver being requested was an oversight on the part of
everybody when the Rancho Yorba project was approved since the waiver process-
ing had been considered prior to that time; that it appeared on the City
Council minutes, but in the excitement oE tkie evening, nothing happened on the
request.
Assistant Development Servi.ces Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission
that he did not know why the Commission did not act on the waiver, however, the
plan had indicated one-story construction, therefore, this may have been the
reason why the ~,aiver was not considered; that the waiver did not affect the
first phase of 3evelopment, and the second phase, when presented to the F~lanning
Department as concept plans, indicated one-st:ory construction, therefore, there
was no need for the waiver request. However, he did not know why final action
was not taken.
Chairman Farano noted that this had been discussed at yreat length at the
Planning Commission meeting, therefore, he found it di°fir.ult to believe this
true.
Commissioner Allred inquired as to what was proposed for '-he berm since this
was a condition of approval.
Mr. Meyer replied that the berm was not landscaped, but it would come from
the north point to the entry point of the tract.
Commissioner Herbst observed tha*_ there was :Landscaping, but there was no berm,
and the waiver of the setback from Imperial tiighway was granted because a berm
had been approved as proposed, and from his observation of the property, there
appeared to be insufficient land left to provide this berm - the proper.ty was
just too crowded.
Chairman Farano noted that this request was most u:iusual since the Repozt to
the Commission made no mention of what Mr. Meyer stated, therefore, he would
request that this be de£erred until later ::o that the Commission could review
the Report to the Commission when this was cotisidered previously, and perhaps
the petitioner was correct, but he would rather be sure.
Mr. Meyer stated this had been an oversight, and it had been called to h
attention when the plans had been submitted for a building permit.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOIQ, May 1, 1972 72-243
VARIANCE NO. 2356 (Continued)
Mr. Thompson noted that the plans referred to by Mr. Meyer.indicated two-story
construction next to the Anaheim Hills property, and initially the petitioner
did not indicate two-story.
Mr. Meyer noted that they had reduced the density several times, and the final
plan did not represent the exact configuration of their proposal.
Chairman Farano read from the Report to the Commission which stated there had
been sufficient changes from the original conditional use permit approved;
whereupon Mr. Meyer stated the vasiance was before the Commission as to the
second portion alonq the southerly 150 feet, and fror,~ the elevation standpoint,
the Grant Corp. had been present and had indica*ed they were in favor of the
two-story construction.
The Commission noted that the plans before the Commission were entirely differ-
ent than those approved by the Planning Commission, and if these were revised
plans, they should have been presented in that manner.
Mr. Meyer noted that they had met with staff regarding this, and it would
appear that the Grant Corp. v:ou~d have to be at a higher .level in order to
get to Nohl Ranch Road.
Commissioner Herbst again inqsired where the berm was proposed since the model
of this complex was landscaped.
Mr. Meyer replied that there was only grass because this was their sales office,
and the grass was only a temporary measure.
Chairman Farano ~cequested that this item be deferred until later in the meeting
and directed staff to check the ~riginal fi~.e to determine what had been
approved. (See page No. 72-248)
VARIANCE NO. 2357 - PUBLIC HEARING. WICKES FURNITURE, 515 North Washington
Avenue, Saginaw, Michigan 48607, Owner; C. N. PRODUCTS,
4530 Mission Gorge Place, San Diego. California 92120,
Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (2)
MAXIMUM AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN~ (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A FREE-STANDING
SIGN FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY~ (4) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN~ AND
(5) MAXIMUM AREA OF EXIT SIGN TO ESTABLISH THREE SIGNS on the propert•y described
as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.7 acresi
having frontages of approximately 872 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue
and 663 feet on the south side of the Santa Ana Freeway and being located at
the southeast corner of the Santa Ana Freeway and Magnolia Avenue. Property
presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
Chairman Farano then stated this item would be considered later ir. the hearing
in order to allow the petitio::er time to be pzesent since the Commission had a
number of questions regarding it. (See page No. 72-251)
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ARDEN D. AND MAVIS A. STRAND, 840 West
N0. 71-72-42 Grove Avenue, Orange, California 92665, Owners; HARRY
KtvISELY, 1741 South Euclid Street, Suite B, Anaheim,
California 92802, Agent; requesting that property described
as: An irregularly'-shaped aarcel of land consisting of approximately 4 acres,
having frontages of approximately 177 feet on the west side of Glassell Str.eet
and 513 f~et on the south side of Frontera Street, and being located at the
southwest corner of Glassell and c'rontera Streets be reclassified from the
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-i, LIGHT INBUSTRIAL, 20NE.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 19i2 72-244
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-42 (Continued)
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and reviewed a map of the location of the property, noting the uses established
on the perimeter and stating that there was 1,000 feet between the garages of
the R-3 and subje.^t property, and that subject property was formerly a very
large hole; that the peculiar shape of the property and its isolation spoke for
the application and what was proposed were freeway-oriented warehouse projects
which were very successful because of the lower rental di~trict, unfortunately
the property was not located in the area designated for industrial use on the
General Plan.
Commissioner A1Zred inquired whether the petitioner proposed a combination of
retail and industrial uses for the property.
Mr. Knisely replied that he had two clients, ~ne being for the warehouse
facility which would not be the office-type facility, bu~ in response to
Commission questioninq, stated that the developer would be Dunn Industrial
Properties, and after having talked with their representative, he had been
informed there would be no ret~il sales, and he would so stipulate.
Commissioner Seymour inquired about the Santa Ana River bed - were there any
plans for hiking trails, and if so, would the appearance of these buildings
affect the aesthetics of the area.
Mr. Knisely replied that there had been discussion about some type of screening,
and if the Commission so desired to have some, they would provide it, but they
presently proposed to have a 3-foot planter area with trees and shrubs, and the
property would be developed before the park w3s estaulished.
THE HEARZNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst expressed concern about the accessibility to Kraemer
Boulevard since the petitioner's plans indicated access to Kraemer Boulevard
at the southerly end of the pro:.erty.
Assistant Development S~+rvices Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission
that this aou.ld be made a condition of approval, that access rights to Kraemer
Boulevard be dedicated to the City, thereby eliminating this access.
Chairman Farano was of the opinion that if a problem as to access to Kraemer
Boulevard existed, this property would not develop.
Mr. Knisely noted that the p~titioner ha3 indicated there wouid be no praplem
as to dedication of access rights.
Further discussion was held by the Commission regardi.ng landscaping of the
property in order that it would be aesthetically acceptable if thP park and
hiking trails were to be developed.
Commissiuner Herbst expressed concern that this being an industrial zone
request, there were many rather objectionable uses in the industrial zone that
could be established by right that would be detrimental to the area, particular-
ly since there were apartments immediately to the west of the property across
the flood control channel; that the traffic from both industry and residential
uses might not be compatible; and that although light industrial uses might be
acceptable, he did not feel the full range should be approved, therefore, this
could present somewhat of a problem in the future use of the property if M-1
were granted, since the Commission had not been applying deed restrictions in
a zone, and he could see that the use of the property would be somewhat limited
as to residential use.
~ .. ~ . . ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-245
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-42 (~ontinued)
Commissioner Seymour inquired whether it was possible to establish specific
uses in the light industrial zone by variance.
Mr. Thompson stated that the circulatlon pattern proposed would precltde much
outdoor storage, and most of the operations would be conducted w.ithin the
building, therefore, there would be no paint shops and large trucks that would
go there, for the most part, would be coming from the freeway off-ramp.
Mr. Kr.isely noted that some cities had a combined commercial industrial zone,
something which the City of Anaheim did not have; that Dunn Industries had
this property tied up, and the Commission knew the type of developments they
constructed; that they planned to construct a similar project such as they
had near freeway off-ramps; and that Dunn Properties did a good job as to
screening their tenants because of the parking problems, noise, and odors -
said screening was done to protect thamselves.
Commissioner Allred inquired of Mr. Knisely whethar '.-~e could bring in the
specific uses proposed ior this property so that the Commission could made a
determination as to the manner in which this petition should be considered.
Mr. Knisely stated these would be regulation industrial bui3dings of 20,000
square feet each.
Commissioner Herbst noted tihat perhaps the property would not be developed as
Dunn would like, and there was considerable open area around the property,
however, because this was somewhat of an isoiated parcel, perhaps the proposal
woald be the best use of the property. However, there should be considerable
screening of the open area.
Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. Knisely had mentioned a C-M Zone that some
cities had, and that zoning covered the uses proposed, therefore, did staff
have anything concerning this type of zone, and if not, how cou13 this be
considered so as to establish specific uses?
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted that the petition would have to
be readvertised if the Commission desired to use the conditional use permit or
variance route, therefore, the Commission might wish to take some action on the
reclassification, advising the petitioner what he could do.
Commissioner Allred stated that he was of the opinion that the petitioner should
pay for the readvertising for a new petition.
Commissioner Aerbst noted that if subject property were reclassified, this could
be considered spot zoning if M-1 zoning was approved.
Mr. McDaniel suggested that perhaps the Commission could reclassify this
property and require a conditional use permit to be filed, such as was done on
the Dunn properties on Ball Road and East Street.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the Commission had
three courses of action on this petition, namely, contir.ue it for further study.
approve it, or deny it.
Mr. Knisely then requested a two-week continuance to resolve the problem
presented by the Commission.
The Commission noted that the agenda for the May 15 meeting was already quite
hea~~y~ furthermore, it might take longer to resolve these problems than a tvro-
we ":oatinuance, and a four-week continuance would allow time to advertise the
propar<:y for a different petition if this was determined to be the proper
method :~f handling ~he request by the City Attorney.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to reopen the hearing anfl continue con-
sideration of Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-42 to the meeting of
May 31, 1972, in order to resolve a method by which limited ii~3ustrial uses
could be established on the property without permitting a fu'l1 range of indus-
trial uses because of the•proximity to apartments to the west and potential
development of the river frontage £or park purposes. Commissioner Gauer second-
ed the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
.~
MINUTE.°, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-246
RECLASSIFICATION_NO. 71-72-43 AND VARIANCE NO. 2358 (Continued from Page 72-233)
Chairman Farano waived reading of the Report to the Commission, but reference
should be made to tte report in the ininutes.
Mr. Dean 61sen, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and
stated they had previously had both ~:eir administrative and sales offices at
this location since 1959, but now they proposed to const:uct a new buildiny
which would house the administr.ative offices only, however, the lot to the rear
of their C-1 property would'::~ needed in order to provide for parking, there-
fore, the C-1 Zone applied to the R-1 lot im~.ediately to the northt that the
setback waivers were requested in order co partially screen the parking area;
and that the parking propose~ would take care of the administrative staff;
that he was aware that staft parked on Varna Street, since parking on Katella
Avenue was limited to 20 minutes; and that the praposed new structure would
upgrade the area, and while the lot to the north had been used for some time
as a residence, the property to the south of it had been zoned C-1 for some
time, however, they were requesting C-1 zoning for only one lot.
Mrs. Margaret Leopuld, 1707 South Varna Street, appeared before the Commission
in opposition and stated there were already two real estate offices on Katella
Avanue, and now another was being proposed on the R-1 parcel; that the commer-
cial facilities were not using their present parking available on their own
property but utilized on-street parking, which was more convenient; that the
agent had stated there would be a large building constructed which would add
more on-street parking since Control Data and the Security Bank were next door
on Katella Avenue, and employees of these facilities were not encouraged to park
on-site but to park in a residential area; that the residents of their street
were families with young children and a number of elderly couples; that this
use would encourage more on-street parking in the residential streets, creating
more hazards to the children and the older people in the area; and that many of
the residents of these homes had to park any cars on their lawns because of the
shortage of parking.
Mr. Stanley Welch, 1733 South Va.rna Street, appeared before the Commission and
noted his home was three doors northerly of subject property; that he had
resided there for three and a half years, during which time the residents of
the area had to contend with providing parking on the residential streets for
the businesses in this axea on Katella Avenue; that it was sometimes difficult
even to get into his driveway because of this parking; that because of the
ccnstant parking on the streets, the streetsweeper had not been able to clean
up the streets for some time; that there were no sidewalks along Varna Street,
and children had to walk in the street, therefore, any additional parking due
to insuffiaient parking being provi~ed for the proposed building on-site would
aggravate an untenable situation and create a more hazardous condition; and
then presented photographs which indicated that the real estate offices did
not fill up their own parki.ng area - unfort•inately, many of their employees
were parking on the street since they wanted to hold these ~xtra spaces for
customers to park, and another picture presented indicated the on-street parking
on Varna Street.
Chairman Farano inquired whether these were vehicles from the real estate
office; whereupon Mr. Welch stated that this was so, and when the real estate
office had meetings once a week, the cars wer.e parked all over the street;
and that he had noted several of the cars parked on their street were from
employees of Control Data and the bank next to the existing real estate office.
Furthermore, Contro~ Data had a very large parking lot but did not permit their
employees to park on their property, thus the employees had to park on the
residential street.
Chairman Farano noted that the petitioner already had C-1 zuning along the
Katella Avenue frontage, therefore, the auestion was whether the Commission
should permit extending this C-1 Zone to the north for parking purposes since
it would appear they were going in the right direction.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~Z-24~
RECLASSIFICATION_NO. 71-72-43 AND VARIANCE NO. 2358 (Continued)
Mr. Welch noted that the legal notice~sent by the City indicated the petitioner
was requesting a parking waiver, which would indicate there was more parking
available than they would need, however, the pictures he presented would tend
to discount this, and they would be adding more parking problems to the resi-
dents of the area since it would appear L•hey would not be using the area
proposed for parking but would park on the street.
Commissioner Kaywood left the Council Chamber at 6:30 p.m. and returned at
6:38 p.m.
Mr. Welch noted that not only could they expand their real estate uffice - but
they could also increase their sales staff.
Chairman Farano noted that if the Commission did not grant the waiver or zoninq,
how would this help the present situation - the street already was being L:ed
for parking.
Mr. Welch requested that the Commission maintain the status que, and if the
petitioner felt the need for more room, then they should develop where they
would not ercroach on the residential area with the on-street park.ing.
Chairman Farano noted that there would be no reason for adding more commercial
uses on two lots since more parking would then be required, although this
could mean the adjoining property owner might be approached to sell his home
for parking purposes. further encroaching into the residential area.
Mr. Lynn Hardy, 1728 Varna Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired
whether the petitioner proposed to remove the existinq home and replace it with
a parking area.
The Commission then presented plans to the opposition; whereupon Mr. Hardy
inquired whether the petitior.er was proposing to extend farther into the
residential area beyond the two lots presently proposed, and would both build-
ings be removed from the two lots before construction began7
Mr. Olsen stated that he did not know if these buildings would be taken off at
one time, but construction would be started, and the parking would have to be
provided before the occupancy of the new o£fice building.
Chairman Farano inquired if there was a way to provide ingress and egress to
the parking area without using the st~eets in the R-1 area, since this could
change the character of the area.
Mr. Olsen replied that they were proposing ingress and egress to Varna Street,
and they were trying tc+ iemedy the existing traffic problem on Katella Avenue
since it was very difficult to leave the exit driveway to enter the flow of
traffic on Katella Avenue.
Ch~ixman Farano, after reviewing the plans, noted that the only way ingress
and egress could be provided to Katella Avenue would be to redesign the project
because the stairwells would be in the way, or the building could be relocated
so that parking would be provided to the front of the building; whereupon
Mr. Olsen stated there v~as no way this could be designed for ingress and egress
without use of the R-1 street; that this would alleviate the existing parking
problem; that he knew of four persons in his company who parked their cars on
Varna Street, and when they had their meetings on Tuesdays, there were many
more vehicles.
Chairman Farano inquired how the petitioner proposed to alleviate on-street
parking on Varna Street since this seemed to b^ the greatest problem and
opposition by the neighbors.
Mr. Olsen was of the opinion that the new facility and the added parking would
be alleviating this parking problem; t.hen, in response to a question by the
Commission, stated that there would be no salesmen using this new building as
their office, nor would there be clients coming to the buildiny, because this
would be the company's administrative office only, and there would be no traffic
coming from the street. Furthermore, there would be little continuous traffic
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2'z48
RECLASSIFICATION_NO. 71-72-43 P_ND VARIANCE YO. 2358 (Continued)
since the employees would be arriving at 8:00 a.m., leaving for lunch at noon,
and le•aving work at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that when she had visited the property it was
necessary for her to use Varna Street in order to make the turn back into
Katella Avenue, and in all likelihood, many people did the same thing.
Chairman Farano noted that people, for years, had used Sumac Lane and Varna
Street as a short cut to avoid the traffic light. This he knew for a fact
because he lived in that area for years.
Mr. Welch inquired why there was available parking on Control Data property
but the employees were not allowed to park on-site, making them park in a
reaidential street.
Mr. Olsen stated that parking was a problem, but he could not speak for Control
Data.
Mr. Welch then inquired what would happen if the petitioner requested further
encroachment into the R-1 area; whereupon the Commission stated each request
would have to be considered on its own merit, and notification would be m.ailed
to the residents of the area.
A letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Roland Belanger, 17:4 South Varna
Street, was read to the Commission.
THE 1'sEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-90 and moved for its nassage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition £or Reclassi-
fication No. 71-72-42, subject to conditions, on the basis that this was an
expanded use of an existing C-1 property, and the existing parking problems
would be alleviated because of the additional parking that was being provii;~d
and because this would not be a real estate office but an administra±ive office.
(5ee Resolution Book)
On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passe3 by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Harbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-91 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Varian~e No. 2358 on the basis that the
•~arking was calculated to include th= stairwells and balconies, which could
not be used for o£fice purposes, and the net office space would require the
parking spaces as proposed, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
VARIANCE NO. 2356 (Continued from Page 72-243)
Mr. McDaniel noted that the overall dev~lopment did show one-story development
along the property line. This was approved under Conditional Use Permit No.
1202 under the master plan of development for Rancho Yorba, and he did not
know where the confusion arose.
C airman Farano inquired about the application itself, the staff reports. and
ti~e minutes; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated that at one time the plans presented
were two-story, but this was revised apparently, and one-story was approved
with.,ut any waivers.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-249
VARIANCE NO. 2356 (Continued)
Mr. Meyer again appeared be£ore the Commission and stated he stood corrected
since the final plans presented in January, 1971, was the final revision,
however, he did not recall that the two stories had been eliminated, anu he
could not see how this had gotten by him. However, in the minutes of the
meeting of the Council, the waiver was reflected.
Chairman Farano reviewed the City Council minutes as they pertained to the
plans and Lhen noted that as far as he was concerned, che Planning Commission
had contemplated single-story, and this represented a change, therefore, it
appeared there would be other changes that had taken place.
Mr. Meyer stated that the plans had been submitted early enough and wondered
why the Commission had not seen them; whereupon Chairman Farano stated that
the Commission never reviews the plans until the day of the public hearing,
and this date was the first time the Commission had seen these plans.
Commissioner Seymour noted that the Commission had reviewed the plans at
their morning work session, and most were of the opinion that the proposed
plans were ar. improvement as it pertained to the variance before the Pla:,~ning
Commis~ion.
Mr. Meyer stated they were attempting to improve their plans.
Mr. Thompson noted that the same number of units was proposed, although two-
story construction was planned under the new plans, but larger units were
proposed and consiclerably more green area ancl open space was under the
revised plans. ~
Mr. Meyer noted there was 100 square feet per unit less of paved areas than
had formerly been proposed.
Commissioner Kaywood then inquired where it was proposed to have the cars
park; whereupon Mr. Meyer stated that every garage would be attached to the
unit, and on the old plan about two-thirds were attached, with the balance
being in the rear where residents would have to back out or tur.i around; that
there was less building coverage and considerably more green area.
Commissioner Seymour inquired whether the property to the south was intended
for R-H-10,000, or was that still in the R-A Zone.
Mr. Thompson noted that when the property was annexed to the City of Anaheim,
the City had placed a resolution of intent to the R-H-10,000 2oner and recent3.7
the Grant Corp. had been talking about construction of a condomini::m immefiately
to the south of the Calprop property, but no plans had been presented a~ ~f. tnis
date.
Mr. Meyer noted that one of the reasons for asking for the waiver was because
of the alignment of Imperial Highway since the property adjacent to Imperial
Highway was below and Imperial Highway continued to rise as it went southerly,
as the Commission might have seen if they visited the property where the con-
struction trailer was located, and this was southeasterly of phase two, the
street would continue rising, therefore, the Grant propexty would be located
above their phase two portion since Grant's access would have to tie in with
Nohl Ranch Road. Furthermore, there was a gas pipeline which physically
separated both properties.
Commissioner Seymour inquired as to the number of units that would be lost if
one-story were required. ~y
Mr. Meyer replied ±nat they could revise their plan and still have the same
number of units, however, they would be building their prospectiwe tenants into
a hole with a slope to the rear of them,t;~erefore, he did not feel that was a
good plan.
Mr. Meyer, in response to Commission questioning, stated that there was a 45-
£oot strip not usable because of the gas pipeline, and the nearest building to
the property line would be approximately 75 feet, even :hough Code would permit
a 15 to 20-foot setback.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~IISSION, May 1, 1972 72-250
VARIANCE NO. 2356 (Continued)
Commissioner Seymour noted his prime concern was if subject peti:ion were
approved wsiving the one-story height limitation within 150 fe:>.-*. o`r ~ingle-
family zoned property, tnis would open the door for the Grant C~rp. a5king
for a higher density.
Mr. Thompson noted that staff could not answc~ as tc. whet .'ra.~~~ ~^':ht propose
as far as the property to the scuth was cor.:erneo,
Mr. Meyer noted that they were _r.~ro:~sing view lotr„ a<id i~: ~•ne-story w~rc
require3, then the Commission ~:o~i]d be surrounding the or~°:-•~:~tory with slopes.
The Commissaon then inquired why the d~veloper had not prcvided tile roofs on
th~ g,~raqes. which ha:: bcen a part of their origina2 conce~.t plan.
^:,:. Meyer repliefi that they had run over their '~udget, tharefore, they could
not provi.de this.
Comm~,s~.tuner Herbst noted that- when a petit.ioner was re~uesting approvz~, the
peti±ione.r stated these would be tile roofs so that pecple would not hav,: to
loc!c c.ow~~ o~ these flat roofs, and nothing had been di.rscussed abov.~ the garages,
howev,~r, e~tr;~one n~w would be looking down or. th~>s.e ratk.er unat~ractive
huildina~•
Chairman Farano noted that the devE~lop.~ent looke3 considerably disfere~+.: from
the •view above than from the renderings that ha.3 be~an presented to the
Co:nmission, and t:e appearance of the garages was raost unattractive.
Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that the *~etitioner had misrepresented
this project, since at tlie time of the public h~_aring tha petitioner had
stated that people would be looking down at so:nething ve.r~ attractive, and
{_':c existing roofs certainly were not very attractive.
THE HEARING WAS ~:LOSED.
Commissioner Gauer sta:ed :ie was not desirous o~ voting for waiver of t:xe
one-story height lim:.tation within 150 fe:et.
Commissa.oner Herbst noted that this ~articul?~- par~:e] had used up theis
density around the shoppi r.<•ntei, %ind as thr. prciec.*. developed farther a:rs,y
up the hill, perhaps the ~...i~s E.ty aould l~e conside:cably deureased.
Commissi.oner Kaywood in~uired wh~_ther a~aro~al of subject petition wo~ild b~
establisHing a precedent.
Cha:rm~n Farano stated that he dld not want a vote on the preposal since he
fc~lt the Commission should spend considerably more ti.me on the project because
of its implications ~n future development of properties adjacent to it.
Cornissioner Allred offeref~ .~e*'olution No. PC.7?.-d8 and moved for it~ passage
a.;3 adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2356, with a fin~iing that
approval of subject petition wou].d not esta.blish a precedent for similar
requests for properties adjoinin? it for mul.tipl.e-samily residential use, and
subject to cr,iiditions. (See Resolutien Book~ •
On roll caiJ. tne foregoing resolut.iun w.~s passed by the fc'ilowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Kaywc~od, Seymour.
NOES: ^OMMISRZONERS: Gau~r, Herbst.
AF_r.ENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
ABSTAIN: COh'MISSIONERS: Farano.
r~llJOURNMPNT F~R DINNER - Co amis~i.oner Allred c ffered a m~~+.r,n to adjourn the
~ T~:eting ior dinn2r at 7:20 p.m. Commissiczer Herbst
seconded the m~tion. MOTIOt1 CARRZBD.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-251
~.~':.JNVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meating at 8:23 p.m.,
Commissioner Rowland being absent.
VARIANC'E N0. 2357 (Continued from Page 72-243)
Chairma.i ra.rano noted that the petitioner was not present at the af.ternoon
session on Variance No. 2357, therefore, it had beez deferred to the evenina
session, as~suming that the petitioner would be present.
Mr. Rorert Do.l::y, 563 Linda Rosa, La Jolla, representing the agent for the
petit~one~:, a~pFeared before the Commission and stated he had ~ssumed the hear-
ing would be sche3vled for the evening and had not been present for the after-
noon heaz~ing, and that was available to answer questions.
Commissi~~ner Sevmoi-r inquired why waiver "b" was necessary - why couldn't the
petitione.r meet Code requirements as to maximum area of a free-standing sign7
Mr. iloaley renliea thst these were standard signs which were manufactured for
the var?:.::a Wi~;kes' locations - many of the signs being prefabricated, and
when a lo~atio~ a^d bui?ding was secured, the signs were sent tu the various
cities; and Ck.3~ i:RE1y had r.ecently installed one in E1 Cajoii.
Chairman Faraiic ?:iquired whether the height of the sign was also prefabricated;
wr reupon Mr. [~o.^Iey stated that the height could be adjusted.
C::~airman Fa=a-±~> then stated it would not be difficult, then, to meet the
maximum heign*_ lia~itation of the City of. Anaheim; whereupon l~ir. Dooley stated
that he would have to study it first to determine i£ the sign was readily
legib:e from the freeway.
Commiss'oner Allred inquired why it was necessazy to have a 3x5-f~ot directional
sign - c~~=2dn't these be smaller ar.d st?11 be seen? Whereupon Mr. Dooley stated
that these, too, were standard pre£abricated signs. ~
'ommissione=• Hernst noted tk:at the City o£ Anaheim had a Sign Ordinance which
often did n~t agree with signs being requested; that in order to y;:ant a
variance, the petitioner must prove a hard=hip exis:•ed and a denial would be
denying the petitioner a privilege enjoyed by others; and that on two motel
signs previously c~nsidered bp the Planning Commission, the petitioners indi-
cated their signs wa~e standardized signs, however, after the Commission
insist_d upon complia~~•e with Code, these prefabricated siqns wer~ changed to
meet ~~~de.
Com,,:?ssioner Kaywood noted that when subject prop::rty was firs~: considered for
deveiopment by ~4ickes, the representative stateZ there would be r.~ problem in
meeting the sign reqciremente; of the M-1 7one, and then inqui~•ed whether one
of the sians would be 1•~cated where the wo:~dpn sign was now l.oc~.ced; whereupon
Mr. Doole}' stated this wtt5 the location;~ an~' that sign was IS feet.
Commiss:aner Kapwood then ~.iquired whether the agent di.d not ::eel a sign •`hat
was almost 10 Yc -,: nigher than the existing ~ iyr, would be e.dequa~e sinr,e i_
would be a,uite visible from somo distance - Mr. Dooley made no recponse.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-83 and noved for its passage
and adogtion ':o grant Perition for Variance No. 2357 in par.`, den~~ing waicer
of the maximuc~ height of a free-standing sign, maximum are>. of a free-standing
sign, and maxim~im area of ai? exit sign, on the ba~is that n~ no•r3::hip had been
proven a:id a sta:ement that the signs were ~~andardized siyr.~ for the petitioner
would mean that the Sign Ordinance o~ the City of Ana'.ieim did not apply to
companies having sta.ndardized signs, thereby granting a privilege not granted
oi::er proper.*.ies in this area, and subject to conaiti.~ns. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolutioc. was uassed by the following vote:
AYSS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer~ Herbst, Kaywuod, ~eymour.
NOES: COMMZSSIONERS: Fa.rano.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlan3.
~ ~ ~--
MINUTES, CITY PLANN ING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-252
VARIANCE N0. 2339 - CONTIIVUED PUBLIC HEARiNG. ANAHEZM HILLS. INC.~ AND TEXACO
~ VENTURES, INC., Attn: William J. Stark, Presider.t, 1665
TENTATIV~ MAP OF South Srookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804. Pwners;
TRACT N0. 75f38 property described as: An irreguZarly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 53 acres located approx.imately
1/2 mile south of Walnut Canyon Re~ervoir in ~he Santa Ana
Canyon. Property presently zoned R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE REQTJEST: WAIVER (1) MIDTIMUM LOT AREA~ (2) MINIMUM LOT D'IDTH, (3)
MINIMUM BJILDING SETBACK~ AND (4) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT
HAVE F'RONTAGE OY: A DEDICATED ST?tEET TO CONSTRUCT A 44-LOT
EQUESTRIAN-ORIENTE:` SUBDIViSION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM ~?ILLS, INC.. 1665 South Brookhurst
Street, Anaheim, California 92804. ENGINEER: Willdan
Engineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
California 92805; proposiny to subdivide 53 acres into
44 R-A zoned lots.
VARIANCE NO. 2340 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., AND TEXACO
VENTURES, INC.. Attn: William J. Stark, President, 1665
TENTATIVE MaP OF South Srookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804. Owners;
TRACT NO. ~589 property described as: A:. irregularly-shaped parcel of laad
consisting of approximately 20 acres locateci approximately
3/4 mile south-s~uthwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir in Santa
Ana Cany~n. Property presently zoaed R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE (1) MINIMUM LOT SI2E, (2) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, ANU (3)
THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATBD
STREET TO CONSTRUCT A 21-LOT EQUESTRIAN-ORIENTED
SUBDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT RE QUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, ING., 166~ Soeth Brookhurst
Street, ~naheim, CaJ.ifornia 92804. ENGINEER: Willdan
~ngineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
California 92805; proposing to subdivide 20 acres into
21 R-A aoned lots.
VARIANCE NO. 2341 - CONTiNUED P'.IBLIC HEARING. ANAH?:ZM HILLS, INC., AND TEXACO
VENTURES, INC., Attn: Wi27.iam J. Stark, President, 1665
TENTATIVE MAP OF South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners;
TRAC"_' NO. 7590 property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 56.5 acres located approximately
1/2 mile south of Walnut Ca.a,yon Reservoir in Santa Ana
Canyon. Property presently zoned R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAICE (.l) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (2) MIIJIMUM LOT WIDTH~ (3)
MINIMUM BUILDING S~TBACK, (4) REQUIR~MENT THAT A LOT HAVE
FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET, AND (51 REQUIREMENT THAT A
SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE REAR ON AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY TO
CONSTRUCT A 45-LOT EQUESTRIAN-ORIENTED SUSDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DE4ELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 1665 South Brookhurst
Street, Anaheim, California 92804. ENGINEER: Willdan
~ngineering, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
Caliiornia 92805; pronosing to subdivide 56.5 acres
i;'.to 45 R-A zoned l:,ts.
Subject variances and tracts were considered simultaneously.
Suhject petitions and trar.ts were continued from the meetings of March 20 and
April 17, 1972, at the request of thE petitioner.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-253
VARIANGE NO. 2339 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 758fi; VARIANCE N0. 2340 AND
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7589; AND VARIANCF NO. 234i AND TFNTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 7590 (Coatinued)
Assistant Zoniag Supervis~r pon McDaniel noted that the petitioner had submitted
a letter requesting that these item~ be removad from the agenda, to be re-
scheduled and hear3 when all problems had been resolved.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to remo~e from the agenda Petition for
Variance Nos. 2339, 2340, and 2341 and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7588, 7589,
and '7590, aaid petitions and tracts to be rescheduled upon payment of an
advertising fee to readvertise in the newspaper when said scheduling would
take place, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Cauer seaorded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITI".TED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING
AMENDMENT GOMMISSION, 204 3ast Lincc,ln Avenue, Anaheim, California,
N0. 123-.~ tc, consider updating the Anaheim General Plan relatin, to
Che Anaheim Hills Community.
RECLI:SSIFICATI0,1 - PUBLIC HEAItING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES,
N0. 71-72-44 INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road., Anaheim, California 92806,
Owners; JAt4E5 L. BARISIC, 3t30 Anaheim Hills Road, Anah?im,
California 92806, Agent; property des~ribed as: An '
irregularly-shaped area of land consistinq of approximately 652 acres located
generally so~:th of San:a Ana Canyon Road between Anaheim Hills Road and Weir
Canyon arid extending soutnez:y to approximately the ridge line of the Santa
Ana Mountains separatin.g the C.ities of Anaheim and Orange. Property presently
classified COUNTY OF ORANGE A1, ~ENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, AND CITY OF
ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAT~~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION~ PC~ PLANNED COMMUNITY, 20NE.
Two persons indicated their presence in opposition.
Assistan•,: Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property consisting of 652 acres, ~he request for approval of a General Plan
amencmen'• which would update the Anaheim General Plan as it related to the
Anaheim ills Community, and the reclassification of the property from the
County oz Orange A1 and City of Anaheim R-A Zones t~ the PC, Planned Community,
2o:ie; that in accordance with the standards eetablished in the PC 2one, the
ap~lic~nt k;ad submitted a General Plan of Development for the 652-acre portion
of the 4200-acre Anaheim Hills Community; that the Anaheim Municipal Code
stipulated tnat the applicant, prior to acceptance of a petition to the City
for rec].assification to the PC Zone, submitted a General Plan of Development
consisting of maps, statements of goals and objectives, and proposed land uses
which shall include four elements: 1) Land Use and Housing Element, 2) Circu-
lation Element, 3) Population Element, and 4) Services and Facilities Element;
that the ^ode fur~.her required that the public notice of the hearing on the
General Plan of Development be incorporated into the public notice of the
propo~ed zone change; that the General Plan of Development may be approved and
modified, c~nditionally approved, or~rejected by the Planning Commission and
City Council; that reclassification to the PC Zone may be accomp2ished upon
adoption of a General Plan of Development, and approval of said General Plan of
Developmen* on a specific piece of property would reclassify the property by
placing a:-~~oi.u':io'n of intent to the PC Zone; and prior to the introduction
of an ordirance tst:blishing the PC Zone on said parcels within the Planned
Community area, th~r~ ~hill be submit!~ed to the City development standard
criteria s.., sFecific plans of developi~.=nt for the area involved.
Mr. McDan~el cnen re~~z_:•c= ~he Laa3 Use o"° =3ousing, Circulation, Population,
and Services and Facilities Elements as .- .. "-c:rth i:: the Report to the Commis-
sion, noting that subsequent to the writin_, f!:Yl•' '_'E;=~?'t~ a revised plan had
been submitted to the Engineering Department in regar~ to a drainage plan, and
prior to the public hearing the Er.gineering Divisioa had advised staff that
the revised drainage plan was now acceptable to the Engineering Division.
~
MINUTES, CIT'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1. 1972 72-254
GENnRF,L PLAN AMF.NDMEtJT N0. 123-A AND rECLASS2FICATION NO. 71-72-44 (Continued)
Mr. James Barisic, i'epresenting Anaheim Hills Corp., app~~ared before the
Commission and stated that the Report to the Commission was preci~ely what he
had intended to say; that their proposal was a General Plan of Development and
was an attempt to design more specifically in conjunctior. with the spirit and
intent of the entire Anaheim Hilis ~~roject, and by filing the reclassification
the~ were trying to pinpoint more stzcifically the exact types of development
that wauld i.ake plare within an area in Anaheim Hills - a 652-acre piec~ of
land in the center of Anaheim Hills which was ozicnted around the golf course,
Oak Canyon, and the reservoir; that this wocld be the heaviest concentration
of living in Anaheim Hills~ and after many t.~urs of research, it was hoped
zhis was what tvould be developed in this area encompassing eight neighborhood
areas which, in turn, were divided into sub-areas that would indicate the
densities, type of development, anQ total number of units, namely, one, the
land use, and the density was for a planned community, and then reviewed an
exhibit of the various areas and densities wherein Northridge on the north
was broken down into Eour areas and within this area there would be single-
family, patio-type sxngle-family, townhouses, and multiple-family apartment
complexes; that there was also a blank area which had not been determined but
had been included in order to draw a tegal 'escription for the boundaries of
~he arr:a, and since they were unr,ure of the exact extension of the golf course
across Nohl Ranch Road and since• some of the lai~d had restriction_r :~t was not
indicated as to what would be developed.
Mr. Barisic then noted that Tract No. 7444 would be overlooking the golf course,
and they were proposing multiple-~amily townhouse development to the south and
east; that the aountry club area had been dividei. int~ single-family, with one
area of multiple-family density, however, they had not beem more definitive
because they had not decided on the type proposed, but most likely it woL.ld be
townhouses. Adjacent to this was the Parkview area, also divided into three
areas overlooking the golf cour~e for a townhouse development and a second
multiple-family project probab:Ly would be developed, however, the density
establishEd would be on the use. The third parcel within this area would
be single-family patio homes. ';he Lakeview area bordered on the south side
of Oak Canyon, which was also di-~ided into three parcels, with parcels one and
two being multiple-family and the third to be single-family. Farther to the
north would be an area known as Eastridge development, developed with single-
family homes while just adjacent to the Walnut Canyon Reservoir there would
be the Lakeside area, which was also divided into three areas, two of them for
multiple-family townhouses and the third for single-family; that there were
three possible uses designated for Oak Canyon, with Anaheim Hills preferring
that this be developed for recreational use as it would be a sin to use this
for anything else, with the adjoining golf course, the riding and hiking trail
for Oak Canyon which had natural growth and a natural tie-in with the reservoir,
but it would be up to the City as to what was preferred, and tbP alternative
uses would be either a school site or multiple-family, clustez-tppe units.
Mr. Barisic stated that they had tried to be as precise as possible instead of
submitting generalities dealt with under the previous General Plan Amendment
because a 6~i mile area was difficult to plan for the future - n~w, however,
they had decided they could commit themselves to the type of density as indi-
cated, which would benefit the City, giving the City an opportunity to limit
the planned growth of this area.
Mr. Bob Mc~,~een, 4831 McKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission as Presi-
dent of the Santa Ana Canyon improvement Association, an.~1 noted h2 was both
for and against the general concept; that their association had spoken in favor
of this, but the concept had been altered so much from that oriqinally con-
sidered because the density appeared to have increased, and they were strongly
opposed to higher density in the canyon, and what Anaheim xills was attempting
to do was fin_a and seemed to be appropriate for the area, but it did present
some problems as to density. Furthermore, another problem existed as to access
and what it would do the adjoining properties; that the density previously
proposed on the original concept was about 3.75 units per acre, but they had
an offsetting advantage with density as proposed - this might be balanced
through the 4200 acres where it would appear they had decreased the density
from 3.5 to 2.8 per acre against what was pruposed in the amenA^~ent; that the
~
MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-255
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A AND RECLASSIFZCATION N0. 71-72-44 (Continued)
topography was very difficult, since he had looked at the property, and Anaheim
Hills would have a difficult time building what they proposed; that a consider-
able amount of earth moving was being done; that the City of Anaheim was not
set up for hillside development; that he had looked at other hillside develop-
ment where properties were left in their natural state, and the City's require-
ments worked to hold people down, keepi-~g them from maintaining the hills in
their natural element; that he would li.ke to work with the City so that the
hills would be retained; that the ove •.'•1 concept was goo3 and would help the
City. .but he would urge that the density be reduced, especially the area where
townhouses and condominiums were proposed since one could not travel a mile
wi*hrut seeing a aondominium, according to these plans - this might be satis-
fac<.ory, but when one w~.s considering the money situation and the possibility
et whether these would :~ell, then the development was a little heavy in its
concept; that the singl~!-family and equestrian concept with one-half acre
estates appeared to be :ine; and then stated he had several questions he would
like answered by the developers, noting that there were two single-family areas
proposed, and he would like to have the single-family patio proposal explained;
that if there +vas a way this could be approved with a reduced density, especial-
ly if there was a method to retain the Oak Canyon, which was absolutely beauti-
ful, and to cut these trees down would be a shame; and that in conclusion, if
there was a possibility of bringing the density back to that originally approved,
they would be in £avor of this proposal.
Mr. Phillip 3oujon-Roche, 21527 Mohler Place, appeared before the Commission
representing the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association, and noted that
their membership comprised of the properties north and east of the Northri.dge
project, and these properties were zoned with one-half to many-acre zoning,
one being the Del Giorgio property of 68 acres; that he was concerned with
retaining the rural concept and the acreage density proposed would affect these
properties to the north of subject property; that he would suggest that the
density be reduced and consideration be given to potential development in the
other areas, particularly when one saw that a higher density was proposed to
thE east where 7+ units per acre was indicated; that those areas proposed for
2-acre lots was one o£ the bright features of this plan, since it would be
compatible with adjoining land uses; and that he would suggest that the density
be reduced to that originally approved for Anaheim xills.
Commissioner Gauer observed that the area adjacent to the property Mr. Joujon-
Roche referred to in Anaheim Hills, known as Northridge, was proposed for
single-family of a density from 2.3 to 3.9 units per acre.
Mr. Joujon-Roche stated that the density, in his estimation, was too high since
there was also multiple-family residential uses planned around the commercial
uses proposed.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that it might be
appropriate to advertise the entire ranch since the General Plan consideration
and information presented at this hearing pertained to the entire ranch rather
than the area presently being considered, because other areas had been reduced
in densities while still another area had been increased, but the overall density
was still the same.
Chairman Farano then observed that the density for the entire acreage would be
appreximately 3.5 units per acre, but this would still be suY.ject to change.
Mr. McQueen noted that Anaheim Hills had indicated they were r.~t sure what
specific land uses they might have for the remaining areas.
Mr. Thompson noted there wer.e a number of dwelling units where these had been
broken down into several areas, therefore, staff had taken a total for the
entire ranch, which indicated the same areas f.or land use on the General Plan,
and that the traffic analysis had been done for the entire ranch.
Mr. Joujon-Roche noted that he and Mr. McQueen had gone over the map and
summarized the acreage and units per acre and found that the density was now
4.5 units per acre against 3.5 previously approved, which represented a 25B
increase, and he would consider that some change, and then explained how they
had arrived at their percentage.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-256
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (Continued)
Chairman Farano noted that even if a traffic pattern had been presented, there
was nothing to say that this could not be changed later.
Mr. Thompson noted that staff had discusaed this with the petitioners and what
was anticipated as the maximum number of units and population for a neighborhood,
and once rhey had reached that density nothing more could be built in that area.
Chairman Farano observed that this appeared to be good in print but not in
actuality.
Mr. Barisic, in rebuttal, stated that the points brought out by Messrs. Joujon-
Roche and McQueen were very valid as to density; that they, too, had gone over
these figures many times and arrived at the density quoted by Mr. Thompson,
since the overall density of the ranch did not change more than about 1/10$,
and when the original density figures were computed, areas were taken into
consideration such as the golf course, the easements, etc., however, they felt
this was not a valid presentation, therefore, they were talking about acreage
outside of these restricted areas - the parks, the lake, the canyon, the golf
cocrse, and with the remaining acreage to compute the density; that Anaheim
Hills was more concerned about the density allocation as described in the PC
Zone, and this was their first major development; that they intended to make
this a quality development because what they developed would either make or
break them; that they would not permit something there that would flood the
market with uses not compatible or where they would not sell; that if he were
sitting on the Planning Commission, he would want to have compatible uses where
densities were proposed; and that they would not have a good chance in the future
when they went into another area, i£ the integrity of their previous develop-
ments were not maintained, since they would have to maintain this integrity oE
a cornmunity for further consideration.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Farano requested that clarification be made regarding the single-family
areas indicated in yeilow, since it would appear that some of these single-
family areas were higher in density than multiple-family, particularly where
393 units were planned for 57 acres - this represented 6.9 units per acre,
which was very high for single-family. Then in another instance where multiple-
family was proposed, the density was only 5.2, and this was somewhat mis-leading,
to ider.tify these areas as single-family with somewhat presumptuous lot densi-
ties, therefore, he would request that an explanation be made to justify creat-
ing these densities - first explain just what "single-family detached" and what
"single-family patio" meant.
Mr. Barisic replied that single-family detached represented something similar
to R-H-10,000 - it would be a standard residential structure with a detached
garage; that the patio type was designed for somewhat smaller lots with a
minimum of 5000 square feet, which would be a low-maintenance scructure and
could be developed similar to zero lot line developments in other parts of the
city.
Chairman Farano asked for an explanation of a"zero lot line" as it pertained
to Anaheim Hills; whereupon t4r. Barisic stated there could be no sharing of
common walls, but the two side yards would be combined on one side of the lot
with the house placed on the ~ot line and the entire side yard combined for
better usage of the property, however, it was possible to have a common wall
in these patio homes where a zero lot line was proposed, thus giving each
property owner an opportunity to have a 10 or 15-foot side yard, or the hoaes
could be clustered or two or three could be developed with a smaller front
yard, a garage in the front yard, a court, and most of the lots would have a
smaller total of gross land area with a common area for these 5000-square foot
lots, and, of course, these would be different than 10,000-square foot lots
with detached homes; that where there appeared to be low-density townhouses,
the Commission might find that these were clustered homes in an area; that in
reference to the area where 6.9 density was proposed for single-family patio
homes compared to others in the Parkview area of townhouses, there was consider-
able gain in the open common areas of the townhouses, while the patio homes did
not have this large open area.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-Z5~
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (Continued)
Chairman Farano inquired whether these would be one-story patio homes; where-
upon Mr. Barisic stated they could be developed either onP or two-story, and
the two-story there would also have more open space.
Chairman Farano inquired as to the square footage of the homes and how many
bedrooms these homes would contain on patio-type, sinqle-family lots.
Mr. Barisic replied that there would be a maximum of four bedroomst that the
detached homes would range from 1400 to 2000 square feet, with homes developed
on a luxury basis; that the two-story homes would have approximately 1000 square
feet of ground coverage, or only 208 of the lot.
Chairman Farano noted that when the Commission considered amendments to the
R-2-5000 Zone, a representative of the Grant Corp. seemed to have said that
this development would have this type of home right in the center of the
project, and that the Commission, at said hearing, determined that the lot
coverage should be 338; that three-bedroom homes have a maximum square footage
of 1400 square feet. and for each additional bedroom there would have to be
850 square feet of land added to the 5000-square foot lots; that the plans
presented indicated a nice mix of housing, but he wondered whether this was
proposed in the middle of the proposed changes to the R-S-5000 2one, and if
so, how would this reconcile itself with what Grant was talkinq about.
Mr. McDaniel noted that specific items of lot size, unit size, etc. were points
of consideration when a specific development plan was presented to the Planning
Commission, a requirement that would have to be met before the ordinance was
read on the property, while the petition before the Commission would establish
a resolution of intent to the PC Zone on the property at such time as the
property was proposed for development - then plans would have to be brouqht to
the Planning Commission and the question as to whether these came within the
criteria of the R-S-5000 or any other zone that came close ta that would have
to be considered.
A lengthy discussion was held by the Commission and staff as to the manner in
which Anaheim Hills could be developed under the PC Zone or any other zone
within the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Chairman Farano stated he felt as thoLgh the Commission was leadinq the devel-
oper the wrong way because of the existing zoning regulations and what was
being proposed under the PC Zone since the density had been approved under the
General Plan amendment and the PC Zone request, and it appeared many things had
been left unsaid since the Commission was sitting here without making any
verification of the overall density, even though statements were made that the
density remained the same, and he would like to be satisfied that there was no
change.
Mr. Barisic advised the Commission that he had just recalculated the density
as indicated on the Land Use and Density Element presented to the Commission,
and the figure they had arrived at cvas 3.3 units per acre, which was less than
previously approved.
Commissioner Gauer concurred with the calculation stated by Mr. Barisic. stating
he arrived at the same density.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the golf course and park were included in
the total acreage; whereupon it was stated these were excluded in the calcula-
tion.
Mr. Soujon-Roche inquired as to the manner in which the aalculation was made
(this was done in per~on rather than taking up time at the public hearing).
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether any of the agricultural preserve had been
included.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-258
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 123-A AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (Continued)
Mr. Barisic stated that none was included, and the portion which was uncolored
was in the preserve since the City did not know where the golf course would
cross with the road.
Commissioner Gauer noted fos Mr. McQueen's benefit that he had visited the
ranch since he, too, was c<~ncerned about the slopes, however, it appeared that
some of the man-made slope~i were as ~teep, if not more so, than thP natural
slopes, and there were only brown hills for slopes which would not be touched
while the developer was planninq to plant and irrigate their man-made slopes,
giving a green appearance that would add to the aesthetice with the live oaks
in the canyon. Therefora, it would appear - depending upon how effective a
landscape plan was proposed for the man-made slopes - this would look better
than the natural brown hills.
Mr. McQueen noted he, too, was concerned with the slopes since there would have
to be some fill, and the hillside was quite barren, but his main concern regard-
ing the hills was the °_act that it would be much easier for the developer to
use these hills in their natural slope - what they have now - rather than all
the cut and fill presently being done.
Commissioner Gauer noted he was concerned with the manner in which these slopes
would be treated and maintained in a green state, although the Commission knew
some of the area would be brown, but there would be less brown areas unless
they did not plan an irrigation program, since this was cutside of the SC Zone
boundary.
Commissioner Seymour noted that many of the requirements which were originally
in the SC Zone had been placed in the Hillside Gradinq Or.dinance after a rather
heated discussion, tharefore. many of the requirements of the SC Zone still
wou " be required of Anaheim Hills.
Commissioner H~erbst observed that af~er developing the more dense areas, he
woul~ not again vote for a change in density once the original density had
been ac::ieved. Maybe this would end up with more open space and a good per-
centage oE the acreage already was planned for open space.
Commissione~ Seymour inquired what was planned for the area west of the
reservoir and north of the golf course, since that was aood property and it
was overlooking the golf course.
Mr. Barisic replied that.they had two problems, and, quite frankly, they did
not know what was planned since it was not included in their density calcula-
tion, and although their original presentation indicated a use for these areas,
some o£ the original thinking did not serve any useful purpose.
C~.mmissioner Gr.uer noted that the golf course would be inundated if the dam
broke, and if anything was built below that area, it would be dangerous for
residents, and he thought originally it was determined that no residential
use should be planned below the dam area because the homi~s could be in line
with outpouring of water if an earthquake damaged the dam.
Mr. Barisic noted that the area below the dam was proposed for a green area.
Commissioner Seymour inquired who would maintain the slopes once they were
landscaped, not necessarily what would be planted on them since he did not
know whether the City's ordinance would cover that, but whu would maintain
these slopes as to drainage, watering, and who would pay for the water bill?
Mr. Barisic replied that many of the slopes were in the planned community area,
as well as outside, and these would fall under the ownership of the person or
persons taking over said ownership - this would be part of the condition of
sale of the land, and the purchaser would assume these responsibilities of
maintenance of the slope.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2'259
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A AND RECLAGSIFICATION N(). 71-'I2-44 (Continued)
Commissioner Seymour noted that one slope was 150 feet high; whereupon Mr. I
Barisic stat~d the slopes would have to be maintained, particularly tb.ose that
were man-made by the developer for some time since they were responsible for
irrigation and maintenance.
Chairman Farano noted that if subject General Plan Amendment and reclassifica-
tion were approved with the density proposed and different types of construction
planned, these could fall within the R-S-5000 Zone in the event that zone change
was adopted, and if the densities could not be accomplished within the periphery
sat forth by that zone as to lot coverage, lot cize and more than three bedrooms,
where would this leave this development - would the daveloper be allowed to
comply with the densities established in the PC Zone as guidelines, or would he
have to apply for a specific zone - thus these densities might not mean much in
the end.
Mr. Thompson noted that the purpose of the General Plan Amendment and the PC
Zone was to place the upper limits of the density wh3ch might be achieved, and
the planning was necessary so that the City could plan for the public facilities
within the maximum of the density approved. Furthermore, in the area west of
the Santa Ana River where R-3 zoning permitted a maximum of 36 units per net
ecre with 1200 feet of land per dwelling unit, since 1960 with the standards
established within that zone, most of the R-3 had developed with abr,ut a 22 unit
per net acre density because of the size and shape of the parcels and single-
family development and zones along the boundaries, limiting the number of
stories to one within 150 feet, t:~ns reducing the number of uaits, while under
this concept the density is maintained by a balance between people living in
the area and the public facilities needed for the uensity approved, and if the
developers say they needed 2500-square foot lots to achieve the density allowed,
the Commission need not have to approve the plans because a limit had to be
placed as to density in order that public facilities - sewe.rs, water, roads,
etc. - were designed for the density approved, and while one developer might
be able ta achieve 300 units on a given piece of land, another developer could
get only 200 units on the same piece of land. Furthermore, this amendment
would give specific guidelines on certain areas within the density proposed -
the schools, fire stations, highways, highway widths needed to carry the
traffic at ultimate development could be planned and designed. In addition,
the Commission was very familiar with what happeried to the streets west of the
river where it became necessary to change the secondary streets to primary and
primary to major highways. However, this could not be accomplished in the hills,
only on £lat land, since it was extremely difficult to widen a street in the
hills. Thus, if the Commission, in reviewing development plans, determined
that the density had been altered from what had been proposed for a given area,
the Commission should disapprove the plans or impose standards for specific
plans.
Chairman Farano then noted that what Mr. Thompson was stating was that the
limit as to density was being projected on the proposal; that if the R-S-5000
Zone was adopted, as Mr. Sarisic explained in their single-family patio homes,
this could be something similar to R-S-5000 Zone, but he could not have this
type of density if they were restricted to something else.
Mr. Thompson noted the Commission would have to determine wk.ether the present
zone was appropriate for this area. Furthermore, the Commission could establish
the fact that this was hillside development and have development standards
criteria that would allow them to achieve a maximum number of units.
Chairman Farano stated he wanted to make sure that what Mr. Thompson w~s saying
regarding overriding the R-S-5000 Zone if this were a Planned Community Zone,
since he did not want to mislead developers in this project on what could and
could not be done and later findinq out it could not be done - there could be
serious legal problems, and he want~:: everyone to understand that these densi-
ties proposed were the top of what coul?. be developed on the property whether
or not the planned community developmenc would be the overriding Eactor in which
this would be developed or whether any other zone adapted by the City of Anaheim
would be the overriding factor, since if this were approved, he wanted everyone
to understand this very clearly.
~
M=iJlITES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 1, 1972 72-260
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A AND R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-44 (Continued)
Mr. Thompson then read £rom the PC Zone which indicated that development plans
would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to
reading an ordinance, therefoxe. the R-S-5000 standards could not be used
unlesg that zone had been applied for and approved, and that the purpose and
intent of the zone w~ould 'be similar to approving a conditional use permit or
variance, but the City was planning and providli.nq considerable public facili-
ties based upon these standards; that regardle~s of what a developer presented
in the nu:aber of units, whether 500, 600, or 900 units on a given parcel, the
plans wcLld have to be considered by the Planning Commission for approval or
denial; that the PC 7,one informed tHe developers of the maximum unita permitted
in an are~ and would allow the City to plan the public facilities adequately,
and since the public hearings had been held on this, the developers would have
some idea of the upper limits, and the schools could do their planning, as well.
Chairman rarano stated he wanted to make sure that everyone was very careful
as to what standards or ordinances would apply.
Mr. Thompson again reiterated the process involved in the PC Zone requirements
summarized by statinq that if the developer proposed to establish within the
csiteria of the Fxisting City of Anaheim zones when development plans were
presented and his letter of intent was submitted to the Planning Commission,
he would have to state under which zone standards he proposed to develop, and
if not within the City's zone standards, then these specific staniiards would
have to be submitted with the development plans for Planning Commission approval,
thus the Commission would always have an opportunity to approve or 3eny any
given plan of development as to whether or not it was compatible with the
Commission's original intent for the area as established by the approval of the
densities in the General Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Allred expressed the opinion that he would rather have the density
decreased where units were preposed around the golf course, even though the
Commission might approve a greater density.
Mr. Thompson noted that the densities indicated would be the maximum that could
be developed. and in looking at development ii. tha flat lands, probably the
most rigid requirement wheze apartments were proposed adjacent to single-family
homes was the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of the single-family
homes, which might apply to this development, but in this instance the apart-
ments might be adjacent to the sinqle-family homes but they would be at a
considerably higher level, then perhaps this standard might not apply.
Mr. Barisic advised the Commission that Grant Corp. and Anaheim Hills, Inc.
werefully aware as to the manner in which they could develop in the PC Zone,
and they had been operating under that same aseumption as to the General Plan
of Development versus what the final plan of development would have to be for
approval by the Planning Commission.
Chairman Farano then stated that it would appear the developers understood that
possible development standards might render them ia a position to arrive at a
lesser density.
Mr. Barisic noted that they fully understood the flexibility of using the PC
Zone.
Deputy City Atto=ney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that at the time this
was proposed, the City Attorney's staff had considerable discussion with Mr.
E3arisic, and he had done some research on this authority which permitted this
type of flexibility of zoning. This would permit the developer a dual standard
existing standards adopted by the City as they could be applied to this area -
or presenting a precise, specific plan with new standards which the Commission
would review as to their apprepriateness before approving the precise plans.
Mr. Thompson noted that there was an area southeast of the clubhouse and Anaheim
Hills Roa3 where the developer was proposing a type of development with sub-
stantial open space proposed, and under the preliminary review of the plan, this
was indicated as being a very good design, however, i£ this were developed by
flat land standards, there would have to be 17 waivers requested.
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, May 1, 1972 72-261
GENERAL PLAN__AMENDMENT N0. 123-A AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (Continued)
Commissioner Allred inquired why the developer was not planning executive
estates next to the golf course rather than multiple-family uses since he could
see only one parcel indicated for single-family.
Mr. Barisic noted that on the north side o£ the gulf :;ourse there was a ratio
of almost 50 to 50, which would al.so be adjacent to Mohler Drive estates, and
these would be almost all single-family; that the developer could not flood
the market with those types of homes since they might not sell, therefore, they
must break up the land use by proposing townhouses, which would be extremely
attractive and would rank with the most expensive homes because they would be
in the high price bracket, not in the 517,000 townhouse range.
Commissioner Kay~eood noted that the ~eveloper had indicated using the reservoir
as a recreational facility - when did that happen and why?
Mr. Barisic stated that he had several conversations with the Parks and ReCrea-
tion Department who stated they might wish to open this and rent boats, etc.,
in about five years, but they were only planning it now.
Commissioner Kaywood stated she was under the assumption that the City's water
supply source cauld not be used for recreational purposes.
Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that this would not be used for recxea-
tional purposes since this water had not gone through filtration.
Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that this water presently went
through a filtration plant, but if it were used for recreational purposes,
there would have to be a more complex filtration system than presently existed.
Commissioner Gauer noted that this had neves been mentioned during Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings.
Commissioner Herbst noted that everybody had been told this water supply could
never be used for recreational purposes, and he could not understand why the
sudden change.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer noted he had read all of the data submitted very carefully,
and the Commission had discussed this for a long time, therefore, he could see
nothing wrong with the proposal from the standpoint of a project, and something
was needed so that plans and installation of the public services was started -
the developer had spent considerable money and had not sold anything yet.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-92 and moved for its passage and
adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 123-A, establishing the Land Use and Housing, Circulation, Population, an~l
Service and Facilities Elements and Densities as proposed on the exhibits sub-
mitted by the developer of Anaheim Hills for the area generally bounded by
Anaheim Hills Road on the northwest, Nohl Ranch Road on the west, Canyon Rim
Road on the north and east, and Serrano Avenue on the south. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faran~, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSZONERS: None.
ABSENT: COtdMZSSIONERS: Rowland.
Mr. Thompson noted that he and Bob Jones from Subdivisions had done some
calculation on General Plan Amendment No. 123-A. comparing it with that
originally approved under General Plan Amendment No. 123 when 15,000 dwelling
units was proposed for 4200 acres, and with the most recent ~hange for the
same acreage, there was only 12,740 dwelling units, making the density slightly
less than 3.3 dwelling units per acre.
e
MZNUTES, C=TY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~Z-Z62
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 123-A AND RECLaSSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (Continued)
Commissioner Kaywood observed that she hoped some of the e,xisting natural
amenities still would be on the ranch the next time the Commission visited
the ranch to look at the hills.
Discussion was held by the Commission on whether this should be applied to thc
area just advertised, which encompassed appzoximately 652 acres of the 4200-
acre ranch or whether staff should be directed to advertise the General Plan
Amendment so that this density could be approved and applied to the entire
ranch.
Mr. Thompson noted that he had discussed this with the City Attorney, who had
advised him the Commission could approve the General Plan Amendment for that
portion advertised and set for public hearing at the next Commission meeting
consideration for establishment of these densities for the entire ranch as the
data indicated.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motica to direct staff to advertise for public
hearing on May 15. 19~2, General Plan Amendment vo. 123-A for the entire 4200-
acre Anaheim Hills property in ordez that the densities approved at this hear-
ing under Resolution No. PC72-92 could be incorporated within the overall
densities for this property. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Thompson noted that staff had not submitted recommendzd conditions of
apgroval for the reclassification, but this would require the submission of
final approval of development plans, dedication and improvement of tha streets,
reading of the ordinances as each parcel was ready to develop, and annPxation
of the property to the City of Anaheim.
Considerable discussion was held by the Commission regarding the mannPr in
which the City approvedd grading, filling and compacti,on of soil, whether there
would be any danger of slide areas in the future, whether the City would be
responsible for damages, whether the City had its own geologist, what the
requirements of FHA would be under which the Grant Corp. would do part o£ ~2ieir
financing, and upon its conclusion the Commission inquired of Mr. Lowry whether
it was possible for the City to be held liable; whereupon Mr. Lo~viy stated that
at this point in time he did not know what happened in tY.is s=~•a, but there was
no law where a city would be held liable.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether this also would be true if the City did
not have an independent third party checking on these geologica:l problems but
were accepting the developer's word as to t:~e cut, fill, grading and compaction;
whereupon Mr. Lowry stated the Grant Corp. and Texaco Ventures were doing the
grading subject to having submitted a hold harmless agreement, therefore, what-
ever was done would be the responsibility of the developer, and he did not think
with the financial backing of the owners (Texaco) there would be any problem as
to whether the City would be liable under these circumstances.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-93 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 71-72-44, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
Commissioner Herbst continued discussion on the cLt and fill operation going on
on the Grant propert}, stating that this should be brought to the City Council's
attention as to whose responsibility it was to determine whether the geoloqical
engineering was properly done in crder to insure that the City would not be held
liable, and perhaps a third-party geologist should be employed by the City to
make sure that the City had proper development for future residents in the area.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-263
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 123-.A AND RECI~ASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-44 (Continuedj
Mr. Lowry advised the Commissian that their function was directed toward land
use and land development rather than personnel or policies which wer~~ estab-
lished by the City Council through recommendations by the City Manager. How-
ever, he did not infer that the Commission could not make a recommendation,
only to apprise the Commission of their function.
Commissioner Kaywood stated she felt this was a land use pr~bl:m - if these
hills slid down, there would not be any land which could be considered.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATZONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1290 (MObil Oil ~orp.) -
Request for approval of revised plans and amendment
of conditio.ns - Property located at the southeast
corner of Magnolia and Lincoln Avenues.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the
property establishing a service station within 75 feet of R-A zoned property
under subject petition on February 7, 1972; that the original plans proposed
the construction of a conventional service station with no waivers from Code;
that Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. PC72-25 requiring a 6-foot masonry
wall along the south property line was being requested to be deleted since
the property immediately to the south had an ordinance read establishing C-1
zoning on the property, and Code did not require a wall between two commer-
cial uses; that the revised plans -~.roposed a full self-service station and
a 560-square foot salesrcom, said salesroom proposed to be used for the sale
of convenience items typically sold in a"convenience market"; and that the
revised plans had no waivers from the Anaheim Municipal Code, however, the
Code, in defining a service station, stipulated those tyFical items which
could be sold in conjunction with the sale of gasoline, an3 convenience food
and sundries were not included in that list of permitted items, but both
services separately - the service station and convenience store - were per-
mitted in the C-1 2one as a matter of right. Therefore, the Commission may
wish to consider the request for deletion of the wall requirement. Further-
more, the Commission might wish to consider the appropriateness of permitting
convenience food and sundry sales in conjunction with the sale of gasoline.
Commissioner Kaywood commented on the numerous service stations within a
square mile area of subject property where more than sixty were located, a
number of these stations being close3. Therefore, in order to prevent any
further blight on the city, she would reques*, consideration be given to
amendment to the Code that would require a se:cvice station to be approved by
a conditional use permit, regardless of the zon~ it was proposed to be located
in.
Mr. McDaniel noted that a representative of Mobil oil Company was present and
had be~en at the meeting most o£ the day. therefore, the Commission might :r~sh
to ask questions of him.
Commissioner Kaywood further noted tb:t both Stater Brothers and the 7-11
store at the corners of Magnolia and Broadway were open twenty-four-hours-a-
day, therefore, there was no need to have convenience itenis as part of a
service station.
Commissioner Herbst noted that it was possible that all sero'ice stations
would be of the self-service type in the future, with only employees of the
oil companies operating them, and it would appear that dealerships would no
longer be given.
Mr. Mike Shea, real estate representative with Mobil Oil Corporation, appeared
before the Commission and in answer tc~ Commissioner l;aywood's comments stated
that Mobil Oil Corporatio;< was still tn the service station business, and they
intended to stay. In addition, they did not intend to have all self-service
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 ~2-264
ITEM N0. 1 (Continued)
stations, and it was their intent to establish these self-service statians in
certain areas only.
Commissioner Kaywood observed she could not see why ~his corner was selected
when there already were three service stations at th~a other corners, and
another service station down the street was closed already.
Mr. Shea noted he wanted to state some of the more po~itive aspects of this
request, noting that he was pre3ent when the Commissi~n considered the
Southland 7-11 store request for gasoline sales; that he owned a self-service
station in Texas with sundry sales and convenience items, but one could not
really call this a grocery store - it was still basically a service station
business, but they wanted to provide a service to the community, and the gaso-
line that would be sold at this service station would be cheaper than normal,
and it was a conventional location - the more positive aspects were the
customer would drive in, serve himself, wash his~windows, check his oil, and
then come into the sales office to pay for the gaseline; that the customer
at no time would be exposed to the elements becau::a ~here w~uld be a canopy
covering the area gcing into the salesroom; that the noise from the operation
would be consider~bly less than from a conventional service station since
there would ba no tools for special repairs nor mechanical repairs, no old
cars parked there, no junk cars, and they tried to discourage othzr than gaso-
line sal.es and did not advertise these services; that there would be no
pennants, banners, or tires, batteries, etc. at this station; that this would
be an extremely well-run and clean operation at all times; thac this would be
a necessary service in Anaheim as ~aell as to other communities; that the
product they intended to sell, namely, sundxy items, would be those which a
wiEe would ask a husband to bring home from the office - bread, milk, candy
bars, even cosmet~cs such as deodorar.ts - and then presented pictures of the
types of items they proposed to sell.
Commissioner Gauer observed that the service stations were not making moi~ey
now with sales ~f gasoline - now they were branching out to s211 other it:ems
just as the 7-11 store wanted to branch out and sell gasoline.
Mr. Shea noted that they selected sites which they felt were suited for a;
service station development as they propased, and they did r.ot intend to
create any more traffic than normal since they went where they could sell
their product; that he was sure regulation service stations still would be
proposed where there was a potential for those needs, but this did not mean
adjacent to residential uses - they wanted to be located where there would
be heavier traffic.
Mr. Shea, in response to tl.ze reason for sequesting waiver of the wall, stated
that they had done nothing to thP property as yet; whereupon Commissioner
Allred stated he had owned the property to the south, and a wall presently
existed on the property to the south, therefore, he was sure the new owners
would want this wall to be retained to separate the two diff.erent uses.
After considerable discussion was held by the Commission on whether they would
consider the revised plans or require a public hearing to delete the conditions,
Commissioner Herbst stated he would not vote for any plans which would violate
a portion of the service station standards established in the Anaheim Municipal
Code, and although the City might have to analyze the present service station
requirements for possivle update to inalude self-service stations, he would not
consider any changes to a previously-approved service station plan.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to deny approval of revised plans on the
basis t?:~t the incidental uses proposed did not conform with the service
station standards, and that i£ a aall presently existed on th~ propnrty, said
wall s;~uld remain. However, a wall would not be required since the C-1 Zone
did not require walls between commercial uses. Commissioner Seymour secor.ded
the motion. MQTION C?.RRIED. (Commissioner Allred abstained)
~
tiiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-265
STEM N0. 2
Surplus County-o~rned property at the southwest
corner uf Crescent Avenue and Srookhurst Street
(5 acre~)
Assistant 2oning Supervisor ilon McDaniel reviewed a notice received from
the Caunty on property declared surplus by the County Board of Supervisors,
noting that Section 65402 of the government code required that any disposi-
tion of the property be submitted to and .reported upon by the planning agency
having jurisdiction as to its conformity with the General Plan. However, said
notification had not been received by sta£f until April 21, and staff would
recommend that the Commission advise the County of Orange that the five acres
of County surplus property located at Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street in
the City of Anaheim was indicated on the Anaheim General Plan as being appro-
priate for a special park site. However, the City had no plans to acquire
the property.
Commissioner Seymour offered a snotion to notify the County of Orange that the
five acres of County surplus property located at the southwest corner of
Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street located in the City of Anaheim is
indicated on the Anaheim General Plan as being appropriate for a special park
site, however, the City of Anaheim had no plans to acquire the property £or
park or other purposes. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIEll.
ITEM NO. 3
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-42
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that Mr. Knisely, the representative
for the petitioner under suhject petition, requested further consideration
on subject petition, namely, requesting that the Commission take some formal
action of e!.ther denial or approval of the reclassification this date.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since he was involved in industry himself and
considering the fact that what was proposed was warehousing facilities, that
mi.ght be a good use for the property, kiowever, this was located on a street
that had considerable residential traffic because of the many apartments to
the west along Frontera Street, and he did not feel the two traffic patterns
would be compatible, therefore, this could be considered "spot zoning" if
M-1 zoning were permittad, particularly with considerable truck traffic on
this street, since the M-1 Zone permitted many other uses, and grantir.g the
zoning could establish other less desirable industrial uses on the property.
Mr. Knisely stated that the trucks would be coming from the freeway and would
not be using the frontage road.
Commissioner Herbst stated it was not necessary for the trucks to come from
the freeway, they could come from the west, coming from Rio Vista Street or
even from Kraemer Soulevard.
Mr. Knisely noted that by approving the condition, namely, Condition No. 10,
this would be the governing factor wherein development would have to be in
accordance with plans.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not oppose some M-1 uses, but he did not
feel the full range of M-1 uses was desirable, and by granting the zoning,
the condition referred to by Mr. Knisely would not necessarily govern the
zoning since the City Attornej• had ruled previously that plans were not tied
into zoning of the property.
Commissioner Kaywood left the Council Chamber at 10:46 p.m. and returned at
10:50 p.m.
Commissioner Allred observed that the City had designated the freeway as the
boundary foi M-1 uses.
Commissioner Seymour advised Mr. Knisely that he should presen*_ the Commission
with a list of uses he proposed for the property, and then the Commission
would determine what uses could be approved by establishing them under a
0
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 1, 1972 72-266
ITEM NO. 3 ~Continued)
conditional use permit which would bQ the vnhicle that would allow specific
uses rather than the full range of M-1 usea,`-'and that the Citp no longer
established deed restrictions for zones as they formerly had done.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission
that this might be handled through the Channel 5 section of this conditional
use permit for special uses, however, he would have to discuss this with the
City Attorney, and he would suggest that Mz. Knisely telephone him the follow-
ing day after 9:00 a.m. so that he could schedule a meeting with the City
Attorney to determine how to handle the use proposed within the limits suggest-
ed by the Planning Commission.
The other Commissioners concurred in the statements made that their orig3nal
action of continuance stand and suggested that tl.e agent for the petitioner
contact staff for a meeting with the City Attorney so that the proper vehicle
could be advertise3 for the May 31, 1972 meeting, and that the petitianer
submit specific uses for the hearing.
F.DJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner
Seymour offered a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ j~~,
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
AK:hm
0 R C 0 MlCROfILMING SER7ICE, INC.
!o:o ~ r~~v ,~:~~ ..0 3::~0
^.n:,c..c.-. ~.~_~..~~...